Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats. Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving.
Wilson and Treasury Board (Solicitor General Canada - Correctional Service)
Before: P. Turner
Appearances: D. Rafferty, for the Grievor/Applicant; P. Hajecek, for the Employer/ Respondent
Decision rendered: April 24, 1997
Application to extend time to file a grievance under section 63 of the P.S.S.R.B. Regulations and Rules of Procedure - Wage rate - Starting salary - Evidence - Estoppel - Continuing grievance - the grievor, a psychologist, became an indeterminate employee after having worked for specified periods - despite agreeing to be bound by the Public Service Terms and Conditions of Employment Regulations upon accepting an indeterminate position, the grievor believed he could negotiate his starting salary subsequent to his appointment - the grievor was under this impression as a result of representations made to him by the person who recruited him, although this person was not a superior of his - the grievor maintained that estoppel prevented the employer from applying the Public Service Terms and Conditions of Employment Regulations in regard to his starting salary - the grievor waited for roughly one year before filing a grievance against his level of pay as he was hoping that the matter could be settled in a collegial and non adversarial manner - the grievor maintained that his was a continuing grievance and thus his grievance was not untimely - the Board did not agree that the grievance constituted a continuing grievance as the alleged breach did not recur at every pay period but was a consequence of a clear crystallizing event - the Board noted that cogent reasons are needed to relieve a person from the time limits forming part of a collective agreement and that in the circumstances, the grievor's conduct did not demonstrate due diligence - in any event, having heard the evidence on the merits, the adjudicator found that the grievor would not have succeeded - there was no evidence of detrimental reliance on the part of the grievor.
Case cited: Rattew (149-2-107).