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.
166-2-31161 (2003 PSSRB 9)
Mbaegbu v. Treasury Board (Solicitor General Canada – Correctional Service)
Before: J. Potter
Appearances: Mbaegbu, for the Grievor; K. Chemsi, for the Employer
Decision rendered: February 5, 2003
Delay in filing of grievance – Request for extension of time-limit – Termination - the grievance was filed on December 7, 2000, with respect to a termination of employment from Kingston Penitentiary which occurred on July 24, 1998 – the grievor requested $1,000,000 for pain and suffering, reinstatement as an employee of Correctional Service of Canada, retroactive compensation reflecting holidays and increments and raises that would have been applicable, to have the leave credit report adjusted, to have pension adjustments, and to be promoted and trained as a Correctional Supervisor (CX3) due to competitions missed – the employer objected to the Board's jurisdiction to hear the grievance on the basis that it was not filed in a timely manner – the adjudicator confirmed that the grievance was well beyond the time lines specified in clause 20.10 of the collective agreement and therefore all that remained was to determine whether this was a case where an extension to these limits ought to be allowed – section 63 of the PSSRB Regulations and Rules of Procedure provides that presentation of a grievance at any level or the providing or filing of any notice, reply or document may be extended, either before or after expiration of those times (a) by agreement between the parties; or (b) by the Board on the application of the employer, employee or bargaining agent – according to a PSAC representative, the union was only aware of a human rights complaint filed in 1998 and research did not reveal that the grievor had filed a grievance on his termination in that year – the employer also did not have record of any grievance being filed within the 25-day time period in 1998 – the adjudicator referred to clause 20.05 which states that the grievance "shall be transmitted to the grievor's supervisor or local officer-in-charge" and concluded that the grievor had failed to do this by simply leaving the grievance in an envelope addressed to his union representative at the North Gate – the adjudicator further found that the grievor had not acted with due diligence once he realized that the employer had not replied to his 1998 grievance – according to the adjudicator, time limits contained in a collective agreement are specific and should not be lightly set aside – the adjudicator concluded that an extension of time was not warranted in this case.
|Cases cited:||Rattew (149-2-107); Rouleau (2002 PSSRB 51).|