The applicant filed a grievance alleging constructive dismissal – she alleged that she retired due to the harassment that she experienced in the workplace – the employer rejected the grievance as untimely and raised timeliness at every level of the grievance process and in correspondence to the Board – the applicant disputed that the grievance was untimely and, in the alternative, requested an extension of time – the applicant alleged that the harassment began in 1995 and that it resulted in health problems that required that she retire in early 2006 – the applicant alleged that in 2002 she had been advised by the employer that, as an unrepresented employee, she did not have access to the grievance process – as a result, she commenced litigation alleging harassment and constructive dismissal – the employer’s statement of defence to the court claim indicated that the applicant had never filed a grievance, and its response to the applicant’s request to amend the statement of claim indicated that the court should decline jurisdiction to entertain her claim as the Public Service Labour Relations Act provided a grievance procedure – the grievance was untimely, and the statement of claim commencing the court action could not be considered a grievance – while the applicant did lead evidence about her health, she was not totally disabled and was well enough to be actively involved in litigation – the applicant provided no evidence to support her claim that she had been too afraid to file a grievance during this period and the fact that she was able to engage in litigation ran counter to her claim – even had the employer told her that she could not file a grievance, she was represented by legal counsel at that time and remained accountable for decisions made on the basis of advice given – the length of the delay was significant, and the prejudice to the Deputy Head outweighed any injustice to the applicant – the applicant had not been diligent in pursuing her right to grieve.

Application and grievance dismissed.