Digests

McKenzie-Crowe v. Canada

T-605-01

2003 FCT 553, Heneghan J.

5/5/03

25 pp.

Motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Court Rules, 1998, r. 216 based upon alleged lack of jurisdiction in Federal Court to entertain claims raised in amended statement of claim--Plaintiffs employed by Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) as Correctional Supervisors--Treasury Board legal employer of plaintiffs--Plaintiffs traditionally unionized employees as members of Union of Solicitor General Employees, branch of Public Service Alliance of Canada--On April 26, 1995, Public Service Staff Relations Board (PSSRB) excluded Correctional Supervisors from bargaining unit because holding "managerial or confidential positions"-- Finding upheld on judicial review to Federal Court of Appeal: Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada (Treasury Board) (1996), 194 N.R. 33 (F.C.A.)--Collective agreement governing plaintiffs' relationship with employer--Job description of Correctional Supervisor position unchanged since 1990--Plaintiffs stating implied term of employment contract CSC would initiate reclassification procedures within reasonable time following change in employment duties-- Alleging all internal formal and informal remedies exhausted and no further recourse available to them except to commence present action--Public Service Staff Relations Act (PSSRA), s. 91 provides grievance procedure for federal public servants relative to terms and conditions of employment--Plaintiffs qualify as "employees" for purpose of grievance procedures, according to definitions of "grievance", "employee" in s. 2(1) of PSSRA--None of plaintiffs filing classification grievance to date--Only two plaintiffs filed staff relations grievance-- Collective agreement incorporating PSSRA, s. 91 grievance procedure--Vaughan v. Canada, [2003] 3 F.C. 642 (C.A.) holding Court's jurisdiction to hear actions by federal public servants ousted when essential nature of dispute falling under collective agreement or statutory scheme--Defendant submitting motion for summary judgment can be granted if moving party showing no genuine issue of material fact requiring trial--Since nature of dispute herein relating exclusively to terms and conditions of employment, Court lacks jurisdiction to hear action in light of legislative scheme set out in PSSRA, Classification Grievances Policy, collective agreement and Terms and Conditions of Employment Policy --Recourse to Federal Court in employment disputes not by way of action for damages, but by way of judicial review-- Furthermore, defendant arguing courts not having jurisdiction over resolution of labour and government disputes governed by legislative schemes and collective agreements--Defendant submitting Vaughan confirming PSSRA establishing comprehensive scheme for resolution of employment-related disputes between federal public servants and employer-- According to defendant, key question, in determining whether Court should not accept jurisdiction over federal employment dispute, whether essential character of dispute arises expressly or inferentially from statutory scheme or collective agreement--Plaintiffs not showing Vaughan not applicable-- Since not attempting to grieve under internal process established pursuant to s. 91 of PSSRA, plaintiffs not exhausting all internal remedies, as claimed--But whether or not employee has pursued grievance under statutory scheme not vital to issue of whether Court has jurisdiction to hear present action--S. 91(1)(b) allowing any employee feeling aggrieved "as result of any occurrence or matter affecting the terms and conditions of employment of the employee" to present grievance at each of levels in grievance process provided under PSSRA--Plaintiffs' dispute centres around continued classification of positions at CX-3 level--Claim numerous responsibilities added to job description without benefit of reclassification--Classification levels relate to amount of pay employees in federal public service receive-- Matter affecting "terms and conditions of employment" of plaintiffs and falling squarely within s. 91(1)(b) of PSSRA--Nature of damages sought by plaintiffs, including request for aggravated and punitive damages, not changing fact essential character of dispute relates to terms and conditions of employment--Plaintiffs not referring to any authority or evidence to demonstrate grievance process could not provide remedy of recovery of lost wages flowing from employer's failure or delay in reclassifying plaintiffs' positions--In case at bar, remedy available, via grievance process giving rise to opportunity for judicial review-- Judicial review process intended to provide review of government action or inaction in accordance with statutory basis set out in Federal Court Act, s. 18.1--Plaintiffs not considered employees for purposes of collective agreement but included within term employee for purposes of grievances--Facts not in dispute--Employment relationship exists between plaintiff and defendant--Relationship governed by PSSRA--Differences arising from relationship, whether as alleged breach of contract or tort, addressed pursuant to statutory regime--Question whether regime provides remedy, not whether regime provides best remedy-- Federal Court of Appeal decided in Vaughan access to courts by federal public service employees, as defined in PSSRA, precluded--Federal Court not having jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs' action and as consequence, no genuine issue for trial--Summary judgment granted to defendant--Action dismissed--Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 18.1 (as enacted by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 5)--Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, r. 216--Public Service Staff Relations Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-35, ss. 2(1) "employee", "grievance", 91.