Hicks and Treasury Board (Human Resources Development Canada)

166-2-27345

  • Before: P. Chodos
  • Appearances: Y. Michaud, for the Grievor;J. Begley, for the Employer
  • Decision Rendered: 1997-04-25

An application for judicial review before the Federal Court has been withdrawn (Court file: T-1151-97).

Subject terms:

Compensation - Starting salary - Estoppel - grievor, who was employed in the Public Service and a member of the Engineering and Land Survey bargaining unit accepted a position at Human Resources Development Canada at a salary that was to be determined in accordance with the Public Service Terms and Conditions of Employment Regulations (Regulations) - the salary range for the position was between $60,285 and $72,539 - a representative of the employer, on the mistaken assumption that the appointment of the grievor was an external appointment rather than a promotion from within the Public Service, negotiated a starting salary with the grievor of $67,632 - the employer discovered the error before the grievor received his first pay and unilaterally adjusted the salary downwards to $65,179, the maximum amount the grievor was entitled to receive under the Regulations - grievor did not dispute the fact that his salary under the Regulations would be $65,179 rather than $67,532 he had negotiated - however, grievor contended that the Regulations should not apply as he was the successful candidate in an "open competition" - grievor also claimed that notwithstanding the error, the employer was estopped from unilaterally modifying the negotiated salary rate - adjudicator found that nothing in the collective agreement or the Regulations made any distinction between an open or closed competition for the purpose of determining pay - adjudicator held that fact the Regulations allowed employer to offer persons outside the Public Service a pay rate above the amount it could offer to a person employed in the Public Service did not assist the grievor - the Regulations were incorporated into the collective agreement and were binding on the parties - under the Regulations the grievor was entitled to no more than the salary rate of $65,179 - fact that grievor was led to expect a higher salary by his superiors did not, by itself, confer on him a right to that higher salary - the doctrine of estoppel did not apply to the instant case as the grievor had not established detrimental reliance - the lower salary was still higher than the grievor's previous salary and there was no suggestion that he would have declined the appointment had he initially been offered the lower salary.

Grievance denied.