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.
442-LP-15 (2003 PSSRB 107)
Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada v. Library of Parliament v. Public Service Alliance of Canada
Before: G. Giguère
Appearances: M. Gingras, for PIPSC; C. Piette, for the Employer; A. Piché, for PSAC
Decision rendered: November 28, 2003
Certification application – Managerial and confidential exclusions – Employees responsible for the first level of the grievance procedure – Bad faith – Limited discretion – Real and independent authority – the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) filed a certification application covering all non-unionized employees at the Library of Parliament with the exception of those employed in a managerial or confidential capacity – the employer responded by alleging that several of the positions covered by the certification application fell under the above-noted exception and therefore should be excluded from the bargaining unit – the employer also argued that with respect to the remaining positions, they shared a greater community of interest with those employees represented by the PSAC – the parties were able to agree to exclude certain positions from the bargaining unit but were unable to agree on twenty other positions, all of which the employer had designated as the first level of the grievance procedure – the employer decided to implement a new classification plan in October 2000 and many people included their responsibility for grievances in their job description and were awarded points accordingly – many employees only discovered their responsibilities vis-à-vis the grievance process once a grievance was filed – while the employees in question had the authority to approve or deny some types of leave, more complex requests were left to their supervisor – in many cases, if they received a grievance, they would sign the grievance and then pass it on to their supervisor – in some limited cases, they would respond themselves, after consulting with labour relations – the employer argued that it had properly identified those responsible for the first level of the grievance procedure and that those excluded were the first level of management – as long as the employer had complied with the regulations, it was up to the employer to determine the number of people and whom it would designate, as long as it did not abuse its power or do so in bad faith – the Board held that it is up to the employer to designate those who will be responsible at each step of the grievance procedure and that the Board's role, in the case where a designation is contested, is limited to assuring itself that those persons have been properly designated and that they are in fact responsible for grievances – the Board held that the employees had been properly designated, as lists identifying these employees had been posted in the workplace – the Board also held that the employees in question were responsible for signing grievances and, depending on the nature of the grievance, were either responsible for providing their own response (after consultation with labour relations) to the grievance, or for providing the employer's response to a grievance concerning employer policies – the Board found that the lack of training on grievances did not indicate that they were not responsible for providing a response to the grievance – the Board concluded that the employer had given these employees, without restriction, the responsibility for providing a response to the grievance and, therefore, they were all properly excluded from the bargaining unit in accordance with article 3 (c) (iii) of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.
|Cases cited:||The Queen in Right of Canada as represented by Treasury Board v. Public Service Alliance of Canada,  2 F.C. 998; Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers v. Treasury Board (144-2-44); Dennee (174-2-245); Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Treasury Board (Kraft and Sephton) (174-2-398); Pelletier (172-2-284).|