The grievor alleged that he had retired on the basis of misrepresentations made by the House of Commons (“the employer”) and that the employer had violated his human rights – he had been advised that the tailor shop where he worked would be closed and that his position would be moved to the sub-basement, where he claimed he could not work due to health reasons – believing that he had no choice, he retired in June 2006 – he filed his grievance in January 2008 – the employer objected to the jurisdiction of the Board to decide the grievance, arguing that it was untimely and that there had been no termination of employment – the grievor alleged that the grievance was timely and, in the alternative, requested an extension of time on the basis that he did not grieve his forced retirement when he retired because of health reasons and because he had been unable to confirm that the tailor shop had not in fact closed – he filed a human rights complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) in July 2007, claiming that he was discriminated against on the basis of age and health and that he was forced to retire – the adjudicator held that the grievance was not timely as the grievor was aware that the tailor shop had not closed when he filed his complaint with the CHRC in July 2007 – even though the grievor had health issues and provided a doctor’s note dated September 2007, which indicated that his condition precluded him from filing a grievance during that year, this was contradicted by the fact that he had filed a human rights complaint – the adjudicator also concluded that the grievor was aware of the circumstances relating to his grievance by July 2007, so being unaware of the circumstances until a short time before filing his grievance was not a valid reason for the delay – the grievance was untimely, and there were no clear, cogent and compelling reasons to grant an extension of time.

Grievance dismissed.