PUBLIC SERVICE |
Labour Relations |
Archambault v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency)
T-2409-03
2005 FC 183, Tremblay-Lamer J.
7/2/05
9 pp.
Judicial review of decision by Public Service Staff Relations Board adjudicator grievances not referable to adjudication under Public Service Staff Relations Act (PSSRA), s. 92-- Applicant working at Canada Customs and Revenue Agency from January 10, 2000, to March 31, 2001--Respondent informing applicant would be on probation for maximum of 12 months--On September 14, 2000, applicant warned verbally, in writing marked improvement in performance required, or risk of rejection on probation--After evaluation period, Assistant Director, Revenue Collections Branch, informing applicant failed to meet employer's expectations, no longer employee after two weeks' notice, as of November 14, 2000--Two days later, applicant filing two grievances in relation to rejection on probation, Adjudicator dismissing grievances for want of jurisdiction since grievances only referable to adjudication if of disciplinary nature--PSSRA, s. 92(1)(c) providing adjudicator appointed under Act has jurisdiction solely over "disciplinary action resulting in termination of employment, suspension or a financial penalty"--Onus on employer to establish "some evidence rejection related to employment issues and not for other purpose"--In case at bar, Adjudicator deciding termination of employment relationship not disguised disciplinary action, but indeed related to employment issues, and thus lacking jurisdiction to hear grievance--Adjudicator's decision requiring greater deference, even though privative clause legislation once contained since repealed--Jurisdiction under PSSRA, s. 92(1)(c) depending on whether dismissal of employee results of disciplinary action--Pure finding of fact, so applicable standard of review patent unreasonableness-- Evidence before Adjudicator supporting finding respondent acted in good faith and dismissed applicant for employment-related reasons: applicant quite simply failed to meet expectations despite many warnings given, efforts made to improve work performance--Adjudicator's decision not patently unreasonable--Intervention of Court therefore unwarranted--Application dismissed--Public Service Staff Relations Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-35, s. 92 (am. by S.C. 1992, c. 54, s. 68).