September 2003
Since the inception of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency’s new staffing and recourse regime, the Agency has held the position that, pursuant to section 91 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act (PSSRA), members have no right to file grievances against staffing decisions. The Union of Taxation Employees (UTE) does not agree with this position for the reasons that follow.
Section 91 of the PSSRA reads as follows:
91. (1) Where any employee feels aggrieved
by the interpretation or application, in respect of the employee, of
a provision of a statute, or of a regulation, by-law, direction or other instrument made or issued by the employer, dealing with terms and conditions of employment, or
a provision of a collective agreement or an arbitral award, or
as a result of any occurrence or matter affecting the terms and conditions of employment of the employee, other than a provision described in subparagraph (a) (i) or (ii),
in respect of which no administrative procedure for redress is provided in or under an Act of Parliament, the employee is entitled, subject to subsection (2), to present the grievance (emphasis added).
Hence, for the CCRA’s position to be correct, the system of staffing recourse established by the Agency would have to be held to be, in fact, redress and further, would have to be provided in or under an Act of Parliament. Fortunately, the matter of recourse versus redress has already been decided by the Federal Court in the case of Anderson v. CCRA (A-306-03) where the Court found that “recourse does not equate to redress”. As a result, the second issue need not be addressed, but in any event, it can surely be said that the CCRA’s staffing recourse is not provided in or under an Act of Parliament, but instead, is provided on or under a policy of the CCRA.
As a result, UTE recommends that members who feel aggrieved by staffing decisions, avail of the CCRA’s system of recourse for staffing, but also file grievances with respect to these matters. We anticipate that the CCRA may reject these grievances by relying on its position that staffing matters may not be grieved, but it is our intention to pursue the issue of the right to grieve staffing decisions before the Courts, if necessary.