The complainant filed a complaint under section 23 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act (PSSRA), alleging a violation of subsection 8(2) of the PSSRA in that he had been rejected for an acting appointment because he occupied a national position within his bargaining agent – his complaint was first heard by the Public Service Staff Relations Board (PSSRB) and dismissed (2004 PSSRB 29) – his application for judicial review by the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) was allowed (2005 FCA 92) and the matter was remitted back to the PSSRB for a hearing de novo – shortly after the decision of the FCA, the Public Service Labour Relations Act came into effect, the PSSRB was abolished and the Public Service Labour Relations Board (PSLRB) was created – the PSLRB rendered an interim decision, deciding that the complaint would be decided under the terms of the PSSRA – the respondent argued that he had selected the person who was the most qualified and that the complainant did not have the required recent experience in the area of appeals – the respondent, in a meeting of employees, stated that the complainant’s candidacy had not been considered as the complainant was busy with his union duties – during a meeting, the respondent advised the complainant that the complainant’s involvement with the bargaining agent was very important and that the complainant could not quit the bargaining agent and become a manager – the respondent had always refused to sign his bargaining agent membership card despite repeated requests by the bargaining agent, stating that he did not need the bargaining agent – some years ago, the respondent had made a comment in the annual performance review of an employee that the latter’s involvement with the bargaining agent was incompatible with his duties as a manager – the respondent advised an employee who had participated on the employer’s bargaining team that he was not obliged to consider “a union guy” because the latter did not belong to the Appeals Division – the respondent argued that on several occasions he had assigned employees who were involved with the bargaining agent to acting assignments in managerial positions – the PSLRB recognized that it could not, by virtue of section 7 of the PSSRA, evaluate the employer’s decision with respect to the qualifications it had decided were needed for the acting assignment in question – it could, however, decide if the reasons given by the employer for not considering the candidacy of the complainant were well-founded or merely a pretext – the PSLRB found that they were pretextual and tainted by anti-union animus – as remedy, the complainant was entitled to the difference in salary between his position and that of the team leader position that was the subject of the acting appointment.