Federal appeal | Employment
PUBLIC SERVICE
Dismissal of complaint under s. 190 of Public Service Labour Relations Act upheld on judicial review
Complainant alleged employer refused to consider her candidacy for acting appointment because she exercised union functions. Public Service Labour Relations Board dismissed complaint brought under s. 190 of Public Service Labour Relations Act. Complainant argued she did not receive fair and equitable hearing. Complainant brought application for judicial review. Application dismissed. Section 191(3) of Act did not impose reverse onus. Board chose to reject procedural objections submitted by complainant, inviting her to present her evidence before that of employer. Although board did not provide written reasons for this decision, case file allowed court to infer that complaint was not as sufficiently clear as complainant alleged. Board did not commit any errors of law or any procedural errors by inviting complainant to present evidence at beginning of hearing. Board sought to determine whether complainant had been victim of unlawful distinctions prohibited by s. 186(2) of Act during relevant period. It was also clear that board heard complainant’s grievances and all pertinent evidence.
Gal c. Agence du revenu du Canada (Sep. 9, 2015, F.C.A., Johanne Trudel J.A., Boivin J.A., and De Montigny J.A., File No. A-530-14) 257 A.C.W.S. (3d) 847.
Dismissal of complaint under s. 190 of Public Service Labour Relations Act upheld on judicial review
Complainant alleged employer refused to consider her candidacy for acting appointment because she exercised union functions. Public Service Labour Relations Board dismissed complaint brought under s. 190 of Public Service Labour Relations Act. Complainant argued she did not receive fair and equitable hearing. Complainant brought application for judicial review. Application dismissed. Section 191(3) of Act did not impose reverse onus. Board chose to reject procedural objections submitted by complainant, inviting her to present her evidence before that of employer. Although board did not provide written reasons for this decision, case file allowed court to infer that complaint was not as sufficiently clear as complainant alleged. Board did not commit any errors of law or any procedural errors by inviting complainant to present evidence at beginning of hearing. Board sought to determine whether complainant had been victim of unlawful distinctions prohibited by s. 186(2) of Act during relevant period. It was also clear that board heard complainant’s grievances and all pertinent evidence.
Gal c. Agence du revenu du Canada (Sep. 9, 2015, F.C.A., Johanne Trudel J.A., Boivin J.A., and De Montigny J.A., File No. A-530-14) 257 A.C.W.S. (3d) 847.
