The complainant alleged that her union representatives arbitrarily decided to not represent her at adjudication on the whistle-blowing aspects of her grievance contesting her rejection on probation, that they acted in bad faith during the attempted mediation of her grievance and that they discriminated against her based on her family status when the union withdrew its representation – the complainant unsuccessfully appealed the union’s decision to not represent her at adjudication through the union’s internal complaint process – despite its decision to withdraw support, the union nonetheless continued to represent her in settlement discussions with her employer until talks broke down, at which point it formally withdrew its support – the complainant filed a number of requests under the Access to Information Act, and the Privacy Act seeking information about her dispute with the employer, and she filed her complaint once she received the information – the union objected to the Board’s jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint as it had been filed outside the 90-day time limit prescribed in subsection 190(2) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act – each of the three issues outlined in the complainant’s complaint could stand as a separate ground, and timeliness had to be determined for each allegation – the complainant was advised that the union would not pursue the whistle-blowing aspects of her grievance before she filed it, and she demonstrated that knowledge by filing an appeal against that decision – therefore, the complaint was untimely with respect to the union’s decision to not represent her on the whistle-blowing aspects of her grievance and its decision to withdraw its support – she gained possession of the documents that gave rise to her allegation of bad faith during settlement discussions only as a result of her access to information requests – this aspect of the complaint was timely.

Directions given.