Association of Justice Counsel v. Treasury Board

2015 PSLREB 18

  • Before: Steven B. Katkin
  • Decision Rendered: February 4, 2015
  • Original Language: English

An application for judicial review filed with the Federal Court of Canada (T-353-15) was transferred to the Federal Court of Appeal (A-379-15) and then allowed.

An application for judicial review filed with the Federal Court of Canada (T-402-15) was transferred to the Federal Court of Appeal (A-380-15) and then allowed.

This decision has been amended by Association of Justice Counsel v. Treasury Board, 2016 PSLREB 119.

Subject terms:

Labour relations – Policy grievance – Performance pay plan – Proration of performance pay

The policy grievance alleged a violation of Appendix B of the collective agreement, which is related to performance pay – the employer prorated the performance pay of members of the LA Group who were promoted within a fiscal year – the bargaining agent alleged that this interpretation violated Appendix B as it provided for prorating only for periods where lawyers were on leave without pay or in receipt of acting pay – the bargaining agent alleged that Appendix B provided for performance pay to be paid for the entire year based on the rate of pay attached to the lawyer's new position at the time that the performance award was calculated – it did not dispute the employer's ability to prorate the performance pay of an LA who works for a portion of the year in a position ineligible for performance pay – the adjudicator held that Appendix B must be read as a whole, together with the collective agreement articles "Pay Administration" and "Lawyer Performance Review and Lawyer Files" – he rejected the union's argument that the applicable rate of pay for the purposes of calculating performance pay was the LA's salary as of March 31 and held that the phrase "applicable salary range" referred to the salary ranges set out in Appendix A (Rates of Pay) – the purpose of performance pay is to reward LAs based on how well they had performed their assigned tasks during the specified period, and nothing supported the argument that a performance award should be paid based on the salary of a position for which work had not been performed or observed – the term "peers" had to be read in the context of Appendix A, which set out separate salary ranges for each category of LA – the language in Appendix B supported the interpretation that performance pay may be calculated on more than one rate of pay – while the collective agreement did not expressly stipulate that performance awards on promotion may be prorated, the employer's interpretation reflected the overarching purpose and objective of the performance pay plan and was not inconsistent with the language of the collective agreement.

Grievance denied.