The Board issued a decision about issues related to the negotiation of an essential services agreement (ESA) for citizen service officers at Service Canada – the Board identified the services that were necessary for the safety and security of the public and directed the employer to determine the level at which the services would be delivered to the public in the event of a strike – the employer set the level of service, and the parties resumed discussions with a view to completing the ESA, but issues arose between them – the bargaining agent made a disclosure request to the Board, requesting that the employer provide it with documents related to the employer’s decision to set the level of service at 100% – the employer replied that under section 120 of the PSLRA, it had the exclusive right to set the level of service and that it was therefore under no obligation to provide the information requested – a hearing was set on the issue of the disclosure request– section 120 is the only provision that specifically qualifies an employer right as exclusive – while section 120 is an exceptionally strongly stated grant of exclusive authority, it does not contain words to oust review for compliance with certain standards, such as the duty of fairness – the Board found that there may be circumstances under which it is appropriate to review the exercise of discretion – the purpose of such a review would not be to substitute another determination of the level of service by some other authority; it would be limited to determining whether any circumstances existed that vitiated the employer’s determination of the level of service as an abuse of authority – a review would be an unusual and exceptional occurrence – subsection 123(3) does not clothe the Board with the authority to review the employer’s exercise of discretion – section 36 provides the Board with the authority to review – that authority is rationally related and necessary to the PSLRA’s object of maintaining effective labour-management relations – directing the employer to exercise its exclusive right under section 120 within certain administrative parameters does not limit or derogate from that exclusive right – requiring the employer to disclose information about how it exercised its discretion to set the level of service does not interfere with that exclusive right – the Board can confine its intervention to declaring a violation of an administrative law requirement and require the employer to revisit its determination of the level of service to redress the violation – the Board may rule on a request for the disclosure of documents that are arguably relevant – the Board directed the parties to attempt to resolve the outstanding disclosure issues, and in the event that they were unsuccessful, the Board would convene a case management meeting to hear submissions and rule on the request.

Jurisdiction taken.

Directions given.