Cottrell and Le Moullec
- Before: B. Turner
- Appearances: D. Landry, for the Complainant; J. Begley, for the Respondent
- Decision Rendered: 1997-05-14
Unfair labour practice - Complaint under paragraph 23(1)(a) of the Public Service Staff Relations Act alleging a violation of paragraph 8(2)(c) of the Act - Alleged intimidation in relation to presentation of grievances - Burden of proof - complaint arose out of an injury to complainant's foot which occurred sometime in 1990 - complainant sought the imposition of disciplinary action against the respondent whom, he alleged, interfered with his rights under the Public Service Staff Relations Act (PSSRA) by, among other things, attempting to convince him to abandon his grievances - at the hearing, complainant indicated that what he was really seeking by way of remedy was the reinstatement of his Injury on Duty status retroactive to 1991, with accompanying benefits - in his testimony, respondent denied that he had violated complainant's rights under the PSSRA - Board stated that it had no jurisdiction to impose disciplinary action upon the respondent - in any case, Board found that there was no cogent evidence before it which would allow it to uphold the complaint as respondent had denied any wrongdoing in his testimony and complainant had not testified - furthermore, it was not open to the complainant at the hearing to change the nature of his complaint to a request for benefits relating to injury on duty under the collective agreement.
Case cited: Burchill v. Attorney General of Canada 1981 1 F.C. 109.