sa plainte – English Translation – Keybot Dictionary

  64_f  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	133.(4) Exclusion de l’arbitrage Malgré toute règle de droit ou toute convention à l’effet contraire, l’employé ne peut déférer sa plainte à l’arbitrage.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine pslreb-crtefp.gc.ca as primary domain	the use or operation of the machine or thing constitutes a danger to the employee or to another employee;

  963_f  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Bien qu’elle déclare dans cette lettre avoir été informée le 5 mai 2000 de la date de l’audience, toutes les parties savent depuis le 22 mars 2000 que sa plainte devait être entendue les 25 et 26 mai.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine pslreb-crtefp.gc.ca as primary domain

Initially Dr. Reid was represented in this complaint by counsel, Mr. Bruce Sevigny. A first date of hearing for this complaint was set for August 30 to September 1, 1999 in Ottawa. At the request of the complainant and with the concurrence of the respondent these dates were used for mediation. Mediation having failed to resolve the complaint, new dates, as suggested by Mr. Sevigny, were set for January 26 to 28, 2000. On January 11, 2000, Mr. Sevigny wrote to request a postponement for the following reasons:

  Foire aux questions  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Dans le cas où un plaignant a déposé sa plainte et change ensuite d'avis en ce qui concerne l'inclusion de certains renseignements confidentiels ou de nature délicate, il faut demander à la CRTESPF de ne pas divulguer l'information en question.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine pslreb-crtefp.gc.ca as primary domain

The 15-day time limit to file a complaint is a strict one. In order to ensure that a complaint reaches the FPSLREB within the 15 days, a complaint should be sent by using the Complaint Form (Form 1) available on the FPSLREB website or by e-mail or fax. An extension of the deadline for filing a complaint may be requested in exceptional circumstances where the FPSLREB finds that it is in the interest of fairness to do so.

  Association professionn...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

En toute hâte, elle a préparé pour la première fois une proposition sur la question de la clause 42.07 et l'a soumise à la page 21 de son mémoire (pièce B-5). Le bureau de conciliation a tenu des audiences les 14, 15 et 16 mai 2002. L'APASE a déposé sa plainte le 13 mai 2002.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine pslreb-crtefp.gc.ca as primary domain

[16] An exchange of correspondence between Mr. Cochrane and Mr. Bélanger ensued to no avail. When the final negative response from the DFAIT was received, PAFSO was preparing its position for the conciliation board. PAFSO prepared a hurried proposal on the issue of clause 42.07 for the first time and submitted it in its brief at page 21 (Exhibit B-5). The conciliation board was conducting hearings on May 14, 15 and 16, 2002. PAFSO filed the present complaint on May 13, 2002.

  UCCO-SACC-CSN c. Consei...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Dans sa plainte, datée du 18 octobre 2002, il allègue que dans quatre établissements correctionnels distincts situés dans la région de l'Atlantique, les postes de jour de huit ou de douze heures des employés ont été modifiés de manière que ces derniers ont cessé d'être rémunérés pour leur pause-repas d'une demi-heure.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine pslreb-crtefp.gc.ca as primary domain

52. Where notice to bargain collectively has been given, any term or condition of employment applicable to the employees in the bargaining unit in respect of which the notice was given that may be embodied in a collective agreement and that was in force on the day the notice was given, shall remain in force and shall be observed by the employer, the bargaining agent for the bargaining unit and the employees in the bargaining unit, except as otherwise provided by any agreement that may be entered into by the employer and the bargaining agent, until such time as ...

  Boivin c. Agence des do...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	[135] La preuve a révélé que le refus de travailler était fondé sur la conviction de M. Boivin que son stress résultait du refus de la direction de répondre à son grief. Toutefois, dans sa plainte initiale à la Commission, datée du 30 avril 2002, il déclarait notamment ce qui suit :
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine pslreb-crtefp.gc.ca as primary domain	127.1 (1) An employee who believes on reasonable grounds that there has been a contravention of this Part or that there is likely to be an accident or injury to health arising out of, linked with or occurring in the course of employment shall .

  963_f  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	En outre, la plaignante a déclaré qu’elle va tenter de modifier sa plainte originale. Je tiens à vous informer, au nom du défendeur, qu’il va s’opposer à toute modification de la plainte puisque les faits invoqués sont ultérieurs à ceux sur lesquels la plainte originale est fondée.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine pslreb-crtefp.gc.ca as primary domain	During the settlement negotiations, the Respondent was mindful of the Applicant’s interests, and sought legal advice on the proposed terms of settlement. At all times the Respondent acted in good faith and in a manner that was consistent with the best interests of the Applicant. A copy of the legal opinion form Mr. Brown to the Respondent is attached hereto at Tab 5.

  UCCO-SACC-CSN c. Consei...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Bien que l'agent négociateur n'ait pas mentionné la préclusion dans sa plainte écrite à la Commission, il y a fait allusion dans sa réplique et produit une preuve qu'un changement s'était produit après 18 années d'une pratique constante.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine pslreb-crtefp.gc.ca as primary domain

[37] Mr. White testified that for the almost 18 years he had been at the Atlantic Institution, he had enjoyed a ½ hour lunch break included in his work schedule. This changed in September 2002. Although the bargaining agent did not mention estoppel in its written complaint to the Board, it alluded to it in reply and presented evidence that a change occurred after 18 years of a consistent practice.

  Boivin c. Agence des do...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Le plaignant déclare que, le 2 octobre 2001, lorsqu'il a présenté sa plainte fondée sur cet article du Code, il avait constaté que la situation avait un effet de type deux sur sa santé, selon l'échelle australienne, de sorte qu'il pouvait se prévaloir d'un recours en vertu du Code.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine pslreb-crtefp.gc.ca as primary domain	[131] Firstly, in the complainant's written submission, he makes reference to ". the effects of harassment, particularly the stress associated with it ." as well as "workplace bullying". I wish to state that I was not satisfied there was evidence that could support any claim of "workplace bullying" or "harassment". Indeed, these claims were never made in the evidentiary portion of the hearing.

  850_f  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Juste avant la présentation des plaidoiries, le représentant de John King, Barry Done, et John King lui-même m'ont informé que ce dernier voulait retirer sa plainte fondée sur l'article 23 de la L.R.T.F.P. (dossier de la Commission 161-2-850) et poursuivre uniquement le grief contestant la suspension de 10 jours (dossier de la Commission 166-2-28310).

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine pslreb-crtefp.gc.ca as primary domain

At the beginning of the hearing in November 1999, counsel for the employer pointed out that John King was using two procedures under the P.S.S.R.A. (grievances and a complaint under section 23 of the P.S.S.R.A.) to deal with the same fact situation. She alleged that I lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the grievances in light of the complaint. I reserved on the question of jurisdiction until I had heard all the evidence. Accordingly, there was a full hearing on both issues.

  Politique relative aux ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Une partie qui n'arrive pas à obtenir un élément d'information pertinent peut présenter à la CRTESPF une demande d'ordonnance expliquant clairement en quoi les renseignements sont pertinents par rapport à sa plainte.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine pslreb-crtefp.gc.ca as primary domain	Requests for orders for provision of information made before the end of the period for exchange of information will no longer be accepted. The parties will be directed to complete the exchange of information and, if a party has been refused information that is relevant, they can make a request for an order to the FPSLREB, clearly explaining how the information is relevant to the complaint.

  285_f  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Ce paiement sera effectué à la condition que l’Alliance de la Fonction publique du Canada demande le retrait de la partie de sa plainte touchant l’article 11, et visant le sous-groupe LA (numéro de dossier X00181, daté du 9 mars 1989), et s’engage à ne pas soumettre cette plainte de nouveau.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine pslreb-crtefp.gc.ca as primary domain	This decision is in response to grievances from 39 employees of the Library of Parliament (employer) in the Clerical and General Services (CGS) subgroup concerning the application of a Memorandum of Understanding signed between the employer and the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) on September 20, 1990 and attached to the collective agreement (MOU).

  Processus - plaintes de...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Le plaignant peut utiliser un formulaire de plainte pour présenter sa plainte. Bien qu'il ne soit pas obligatoire d'utiliser le formulaire, la plainte doit être faite par écrit et doit comporter les éléments suivants (art.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine pslreb-crtefp.gc.ca as primary domain	The complainant may use a complaint form to make his or her complaint. Even though the use of a form is not obligatory a complaint must be filed in writing and must include the following information (s. 11 of the

  Boivin c. Agence des do...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	(4) [Exclusion de l'arbitrage] Malgré toute règle de droit ou toute convention à l'effet contraire, l'employé ne peut déférer sa plainte à l'arbitrage.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine pslreb-crtefp.gc.ca as primary domain	(4) [Exclusion of arbitration] Notwithstanding any law or agreement to the contrary, a complaint made under this section may not be referred by an employee to arbitration or adjudication.

  Boivin c. Agence des do...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	[23] Dans sa réponse, M. Boivin suggère que le dépôt de sa plainte devrait être considéré comme constituant un grief continu. Aux alinéas 33 et 34 de la réponse de M. Boivin, ce dernier soutient ce qui suit : [Traduction]
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine pslreb-crtefp.gc.ca as primary domain	[22] Mr. Boivin's complaint was filed on April 30, 2002, and the employer submits this is out of time, in accordance with subsection 133(2) of the Code.

  963_f  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Par conséquent, comme la charge de la preuve incombe à la plaignante et qu’elle n’était ni présente, ni représentée à l’audience, je rejette sa plainte.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine pslreb-crtefp.gc.ca as primary domain	Accordingly, since the burden of proof is on the complainant, and she was not present or represented at the hearing, I hereby dismiss the complaint.

  64_f  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

La déclaration que M. Pruyn aurait faite à l’enquêteure sur sa plainte de harcèlement, en disant qu’il ne se sentait pas isolé, n’est pas suffisamment corroborée par la témoin pour minimiser ou saper la crédibilité des autres déclarations du contraire que le plaignant a faites.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine pslreb-crtefp.gc.ca as primary domain

For the reasons stated above, I conclude that the employer imposed a penalty on Mr. Pruyn when it maintained his isolation after the November 8, 1999 declaration by the Safety Officer Paul Danton that the current flooring was no longer considered a tripping hazard. After November 8, 1999, the temporary solutions applied with respect to carpet tiles and the inspection procedure are sufficient to avoid the carpet tiles to be hazardous as stated by the OSHC and the Labour Canada Officer. Mr. Pruyn’s fears to go on carpet tiles, before his work refusal, seemed to be minimized after the application of the temporary solutions. As per the many statements he made to the employer, verbally and in writing, this isolation affected his ability to work. The bargaining agent agreed to another work location for Mr. Pruyn with his consent. This was valid for a short period of time following the work refusal, as stated in Mary-Ann Pearson-Jolley’s November 10 e-mail message as follows:

  Czmola c. Conseil du tr...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Pour que sa plainte soit accueillie, M. Czmola devait prouver qu'un danger au sens de la définition énoncée dans le Code existait au moment où il a exercé son droit de refuser d'exécuter un travail dangereux, et que ce danger était plus grave que les dangers inhérents auxquels les agents correctionnels doivent faire face dans le cours normal de l'exécution de leurs fonctions.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine pslreb-crtefp.gc.ca as primary domain

[14] I have come to the conclusion that the new material provided by Mr. Czmola would not have such an effect on the initial decision. That decision found that danger was inherent in a Correctional Officer's duties, but that the employer had an obligation to ensure that the performance of these duties was free from unnecessary risks. The fact that the RCMP was conducting an undercover drug operation at the penitentiary at the time of the work refusal does nothing to change the fact that risks are inherent in the performance of a correctional officer's duties. The decision was based on the definition of danger as set out in the Code and as applied to the factual situation within the penitentiary as it was known to be at the time of the investigation. In order to succeed in his complaint, Mr. Czmola had to prove that a danger, in accordance with the definition of the Code, existed at the time that he exercised his right to refuse unsafe work and that this danger went beyond the inherent dangers that correctional officers face in the normal performance of their work. The Board held that the danger posed by drugs, alcohol and weapons was an inherent part of the officer's duties. Would it have been different had the board known that drugs were not only present in the institution but were being introduced by the RCMP? I do not believe so. There is no indication in the new evidence that drugs were being introduced into the institution in amounts sufficient to constitute a danger for correctional officers or that the introduction of these drugs had changed the atmosphere in the institution. Indeed, the new information submitted by Mr. Czmola fails to prove that any drugs related to the undercover operation were present in the institution on the day at issue. While the information supplied by Mr. Czmola indicates that the RCMP's undercover drug operation was ongoing at the time that Messrs. Czmola and Rodier exercised their right to refuse unsafe work, it is only speculation that this activity was either in action on April 28, 1998, or in effect to such a degree as to heighten security concerns within the institution on the day in question.

  Boivin c. Agence des do...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Code canadien du travail, Partie II (Santé et sécurité au travail) - Refus de travailler - Article 133 du Code canadien du travail - Violation alléguée de l'alinéa 147c) du Code - Délai de prescription - le plaignant a exercé son droit de refuser de travailler conformément à la Partie II du Code canadien du travail (Code) - l'affaire a fait l'objet d'une enquête par un agent de santé et de sécurité qui a conclu, le 15 octobre 2001, qu'il n'y avait aucun danger dans l'environnement de travail du plaignant - l'employeur a demandé au plaignant de se soumettre à un " test d'aptitude au travail " à Santé Canada afin d'établir s'il était physiquement apte à continuer de travailler - Santé Canada a conclu, au terme de cette évaluation, que le plaignant n'était pas apte à travailler - en conséquence, le 18 octobre 2001, l'employeur a mis le plaignant en congé de maladie et, à compter du 17 novembre 2001, en congé non payé - le plaignant a déposé sa plainte, alléguant que les mesures prises par l'employeur à cet égard le 30 avril 2002 constituaient des représailles - l'employeur a fait valoir que la plainte avait été déposée en dehors des délais prescrits, puisque le délai de 90 jours prévu au Code était expiré au moment du dépôt - le plaignant a fait valoir que la plainte était de nature continue et qu'elle avait donc été déposée dans les délais prescrits - la Commission a conclu que, si l'employeur a mis le plaignant en congé non payé parce que ce dernier avait exercé son droit en vertu de la Partie II du Code en retirant ses services, cela pourrait constituer une violation du Code - si tel est le cas, il s'agirait d'une violation continue et la limite de quatre-vingt-dix jours ne serait qu'une mesure de redressement - toutefois, la Commission a déclaré qu'elle ne pouvait déterminer si les actions de l'employeur allaient à l'encontre de l'article 147 du Code qu'après la présentation de la preuve - en outre, le plaignant a établi qu'il avait déposé une demande de prestations auprès de la Commission de la sécurité professionnelle et de l'assurance contre les accidents du travail (CSPAAT) le 18 octobre 2001 - le 23 octobre 2001, l'employeur a accepté sa demande de prestations de la CSPAAT et a accordé au plaignant une avance de crédits de congé de maladie de 25 jours à l'appui de cette demande - le 7 février 2002, la CSPAAT a rejeté la demande de prestations du plaignant - le plaignant devait donc rembourser l'avance de 25 jours qui lui avait été accordée par l'emp

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine pslreb-crtefp.gc.ca as primary domain

Canada Labour Code, Part II (Occupational health and safety) – Work refusal – Section 133 of the Canada Labour Code – Alleging a violation of paragraph 147(c) thereof – Time limit – the complainant exercised his right to refuse to work pursuant to Part II of the Canada Labour Code (Code) – the matter was investigated by a Health and Safety Officer who on October 15, 2001, found that there was no danger present in the complainant's workplace – the employer asked the complainant to undergo an evaluation from Health Canada in order to determine his fitness to continue to work – as a result of its examination, Health Canada found that the complainant was not fit for work – therefore, on October 18, 2001, the employer placed the complainant on sick leave and on leave without pay on November 17, 2001 – the complainant submitted his complaint alleging that the employer's actions in this regard were retaliatory in nature on April 30, 2002 – the employer maintained that the complaint was untimely as the complainant had missed the 90-day time limit specified in the Code – the complainant submitted that the complaint was of a continuing nature and was, therefore, timely – the Board found that, if the employer placed the complainant on leave without pay because he exercised his right under Part II of the Code by withdrawing his services, this might constitute a violation of the Code – if so, it would be a continuing violation and the 90-day time limit would only affect the remedy – however, the Board stated that it could only determine whether the employer's actions were in fact contrary to section 147 of the Code following the presentation of the evidence – in addition, the complainant established that he had filed for benefits from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) on October 18, 2001 – on October 23, 2001, the employer accepted his claim for WSIB benefits and granted the complainant an advance of 25 days' sick leave based upon that claim – on February 7, 2002, the WSIB denied the complainant's claim for benefits – the complainant was now required to repay the 25 days advanced to him by the employer – the complainant alleged that the 90-day time limit for submitting his complaint to the Board should commence on February 7, 2002 – the Board concluded that this was a new issue on which it had not heard any evidence – evidence and argument were required to enable the Board to determine this issue.

  King c. Conseil du Trés...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Suspension (10 jours) – Affichage sur le lieu de travail d'un avis conseillant le recours à des moyens de pression – Agent des douanes – Dirigeant syndical – au début de l'audience, le fonctionnaire s'estimant lésé a retiré sa plainte et trois de ses griefs (161-2-850), (166-2-28309, 28311 et 28312) – il a maintenu seulement le grief contestant la suspension de 10 jours (166-2-28310) – le fonctionnaire était agent des douanes et président de la section locale du syndicat – à la suite de certains incidents survenus sur le lieu de travail et mettant en cause des agents des douanes, le fonctionnaire a affiché sur le lieu de travail un avis conseillant à ces derniers, pour leur propre protection, de ne pas fouiller les bagages des passagers en l'absence d'un témoin – l'employeur lui a imposé une suspension de 10 jours pour avoir conseillé de recourir à des moyens de pression – l'employeur a reconnu qu'il n'y a pas eu de moyen de pression à la suite de la lettre du fonctionnaire – le fonctionnaire a allégué que l'employeur avait contrevenu aux règles de l'équité procédurale en lui imposant une mesure disciplinaire sans procédure de recours – l'arbitre a fait remarquer que tout manquement éventuel aux règles d'équité procédurale de la part de l'employeur avait été réparé par l'audition de novo devant un arbitre nommé en vertu de la Loi sur les relations de travail dans la fonction publique (LRTFP) – l'arbitre a conclu que le fonctionnaire, dans sa lettre, conseillait de recourir à des moyens de pression contrairement aux dispositions de la LRTFP – bien que le geste du fonctionnaire ait justifié l'imposition d'une mesure disciplinaire, l'arbitre a déterminé qu'une suspension de 10 jours était une peine trop sévère dans les circonstances et elle y a substitué une suspension de cinq jours.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine pslreb-crtefp.gc.ca as primary domain

Suspension (10 days) – Posting of notice in the workplace counseling job action – Customs Officer – Union official – at the commencement of the hearing, grievor withdrew his complaint and three of his grievances: (161-2-850), (166-2-28309, 28311 and 28312) – he proceeded only with the grievance against the 10-day suspension: (166-2-28310) – grievor was a customs officer and president of his union local – as a result of certain incidents in the workplace involving customs officers, grievor posted a notice in the workplace advising customs officers, for their own protection, not to search passengers' luggage without a witness present – employer imposed a 10-day suspension on the grievor for counselling job action – employer conceded that no employee had engaged in job action as a result of the grievor's letter – grievor alleged that employer had breached the rules of procedural fairness by imposing discipline upon him without affording him due process – adjudicator pointed out that any breach of the rules of procedural fairness by the employer was cured by a hearing de novo before an adjudicator appointed under the Public Service Staff Relations Act (PSSRA) – adjudicator concluded that grievor, in his letter, was counselling job action contrary to the provisions of the PSSRA – although grievor's action merited discipline, adjudicator determined that a 10-day suspension was too severe a penalty under the circumstances and she substituted a 5-day suspension therefor.