PUBLIC SERVICE
Labour Relations
Judicial review of Public Service Staff Relations Board (Board) decision refusing applicant’s request for acting pay—Issue whether employee entitled to be paid higher classification rate for work performed before higher classification created—As part of employer’s restructuring, new job classifications developed—Applicant informed in October 2001 that would be elevated from AU‑03 group and level to new MG‑05 group and level—Informed in August 2002 that effective date of appointment March 31, 2002 —Applicant receiving performance bonus based on higher MG rate of pay as that was his rate of pay on last day of fiscal year (i.e. March 31, 2002)—Policy requiring performance of MG duties for at least six consecutive months during performance management period—Applicant arguing should also be paid at MG level for the period from October 14, 2001 to March 31, 2002, as he carried out MG functions during that time— Employer (respondent) disagreeing—Board member holding grievance could not be evaluated on basis of acting pay as pay rate requested non‑existent at relevant time, grievance adjudicator unable to amend collective agreement— Although questions of law usually reviewed on correctness standard, particular deference owed with respect to interpretation of collective agreements—Here, standard of review reasonableness—Board member right to refuse to analyse applicant’s work in light of non‑existent classification at time work performed—Board member’s decision logical, reasonable, correct in law: how can one compare job which exists to job which at the time did not exist?—Application dismissed.
Heppell v. Canada (Attorney General) (T‑1177‑04, 2005 FC 1345, Harrington J., order dated 30/9/05, 8 pp.)