[2012] 4 F.C.R. D-5
Public Service
Labour Relations
Classification—Judicial review of Classification Grievance Committee decision recommending applicant’s classification grievance be rejected—Applicant, Environmental Assessment Coordinator, applying to have position re-evaluated, filing grievance following employer’s decision to maintain position’s overall rating—Arguing two of five factors governing classification level should be upgraded—Committee accepting one of two factors should be upgraded, but going on to determine, without notice to applicant, third factor should be downgraded—Whether procedural fairness breached—First time Court called upon to address issue of whether or not classification committee having to disclose potential downgrade in circumstances where not reasonable for grievor to expect downgrade in play, but where all evidence upon which decision being made disclosed—Requirements of procedural fairness in case at bar requiring Committee: (a) disclose fact considering downgrading factor at issue, (b) afford parties opportunity to make submissions on potential downgrade—While content of duty of fairness in context of classification grievances in federal public service falling “somewhere in the lower zone of the spectrum”, even minimal requirements of procedural fairness not respected herein, i.e. fundamental right of individual to know case to be met, to be afforded opportunity to respond to central issues—Important interests at stake in classification grievances, as outcome affecting grievors’ remuneration, pensions—Also, allowing grievances to be disposed of based on factors not discussed nor reasonably anticipated as relevant by parties would increase complexity, length of process—Application allowed.
Fischer v. Canada (Attorney General) (T-1132-11, 2012 FC 720, Gleason J., judgment dated June 12, 2012, 16 pp.)