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.
166-32-30236 (2001 PSSRB 83)
Vallières v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Before: L.-P. Guindon
Appearances: V. Charette, for the Grievor; M.-C. Couture, for the Employer
Decision rendered: August 1, 2001
Compensation – Overtime – Travelling time – Paid leave for personnel selection competition – Veterinary Medicine Group – the grievor submitted his application for a position with the employer – the selection competition was held on a Saturday at a location other than his normal place of work, but in the same community – the employer refused to pay the grievor overtime to cover his travelling time and his participation in the personnel selection competition – the employer's refusal was justified by the fact that the competition was not held on one of the grievor's workdays – the grievor argued that an employee who participates in a personnel selection competition is required to do so by the employer – the employer responded that participation in such a competition did not constitute work for the purpose of the collective agreement – the employer added that, even though the competition was not held at the grievor's normal place of work, it was held in his headquarters area – the adjudicator found that the grievor was not entitled to paid leave for a personnel selection competition because the competition was not held on his days of work – the adjudicator also found that the grievor was not entitled to compensation for his travelling time since the competition was held within his headquarters area – further, the adjudicator found that the grievor could not perform overtime during the selection competition because participation in such a competition does not constitute work.
|Cases cited:||Hurley (166-2-21564); Barran (166-2-16672); Groves (166-2-723); Fairfield (166-2-660).|