The Federal Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal against the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board’s dismissal of a worker’s duty of fair representation (DFR) complaint from nearly three decades ago.
The worker, V.W., had alleged that the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) failed to fairly represent him in his 1997 termination grievance.
The court upheld the Board’s decision to summarily dismiss V.W.’s complaint, which he claimed was unreasonable and procedurally unfair. The Board determined that the complaint was “trivial, frivolous, vexatious or was made in bad faith,” as allowed under section 21 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act.
V.W.’s attempt to introduce two letters from 1993 as new evidence in his case was also denied by the court, which ruled that the documents were irrelevant to the Board’s original decision-making process.
“The letters were not before the Board and do not fall into any of the recognized exceptions for admitting evidence not before the decision-maker,” the ruling stated, referencing a precedent set in the 2012 Access Copyright case.
Addressing claims of procedural unfairness, the court found no evidence of bias or conflict of interest. It also ruled that the Board did not err in deciding the matter without an oral hearing, noting, “The Board is expressly authorized to do so,” according to the legislation governing its operations.
Reflecting on the historical context, the court mentioned that V.W.’s initial grievance was dismissed in 1997, and subsequent legal challenges were unsuccessful. This included a 2000 judicial review application that was dismissed for being brought three years after the relevant events.
The court’s decision reiterated the Board’s position that the complaint was an attempt to relitigate settled issues. “The Board reasonably concluded that the applicant was attempting to revive a matter that was settled long ago,” the court explained.
In its concluding remarks, the court underscored the reasonableness of the Board’s decision, citing the “justification, transparency, and intelligibility” of its reasons, which align with the principles set out in the landmark 2019 Vavilov case.
The application and motion were dismissed without costs, finalizing the court’s stance on the matter.
For more information, see Walcott v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, 2024 FCA 68 (CanLII).
