The grievor alleged a violation of article 43 of his collective agreement, which is the no-discrimination clause – the wording of the grievance did not mention discrimination – it alleged that the employer’s handling of his harassment complaint and the conduct of the subsequent investigation had been defective – the employer objected to the jurisdiction of an adjudicator to hear the grievance because the grievance’s wording did not mention the interpretation or application of the collective agreement – it alleged that the grievance dealt with alleged personal harassment and abuse of authority – the employer argued that the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Burchill v. Attorney General of Canada, [1981] 1 F.C. 109, applied and that it prohibited the grievor from altering the grievance to make it adjudicable – the adjudicator held that, while the wording of the grievance did not refer to the no-discrimination clause of the collective agreement, it was clear that it referred to harassment, and the grievor made it clear during the grievance process that he had felt harassed on the basis of disability – the employer had opportunities to address the alleged violation of article 43 but chose not to – it cannot argue that it was caught by surprise and that it did not understand the nature of the allegations when it claimed that Burchill applied – the grievor did not alter or amend his grievance and did not refer a different grievance to adjudication.

Preliminary objection dismissed.