T-1514-81
Claude Gobeil (Applicant)
v.
Public Service Staff Relations Board and
Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay (Respondents)
and
The Queen for the Treasury Board, represented by
the Deputy Attorney General of Canada (Mis -en-
cause)
Trial Division, Addy J.—Montreal, March 30,
1981.
Prerogative writs — Mandamus — Refusal of Adjudicator
to hear applicant's application for adjudication on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction — Applicant refused to meet with his
postmaster before he could report for work — Applicant
contends that his absence from his employment and his loss of
salary, which became the subject-matter of a grievance,
resulted from disciplinary action taken by the employer
resulting in a suspension or a financial penalty — Whether the
condition imposed on the employee to meet with his postmas
ter constitutes disciplinary action or a decision of an adminis
trative nature — Whether the applicant's grievance on his loss
of salary falls under s. 91(1) or s. 95(3) of the Public Service
Staff Relations Act — Public Service Staff Relations Act,
R.S.C. 1970, c. P-35, ss. 91(1), 95(3) — Federal Court Act,
R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, s. 18.
APPLICATION.
COUNSEL:
R. Bertrand for applicant.
J. P. Aubre for respondents.
J. C. Demers for mis -en-cause.
SOLICITORS:
Trudel, Nadeau, Lesage, Cleary & Ménard,
Montreal, for applicant.
J. P. Aubre, % Public Service Staff Rela
tions Board, Ottawa, for respondents.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
mis -en-cause.
The following are the reasons for order ren
dered in English by
ADDY J.: The case at bar does not in any way
involve the interpretation of clause 2.01 of the
collective agreement, as counsel for the applicant
argued. Paragraph 91(1)(a) therefore does not
apply.
The fifteen-minute suspension imposed on Feb-
ruary 19, 1979, resulting in a loss of salary for that
period, constitutes disciplinary action resulting in a
financial penalty, in accordance with the provi
sions of paragraph (b) of section 91(1)'. Since the
applicant did not submit a grievance for this sus
pension and loss of salary, it is clear that the
Adjudicator could not base his jurisdiction on this
procedure.
The conditions imposed on the employee, to
meet with his postmaster before he could report
for work the following day, do not constitute disci
plinary action, but rather a decision of a purely
administrative nature which was quite normal in
the circumstances.
The absence of the applicant from his employ
ment between February 13 and 19, and the loss of
salary for that period, resulted directly and solely
from the employee's refusal to comply with this
administrative direction by the employer, and not
from disciplinary action taken by the latter result
ing in a suspension or a financial penalty. The
principle of "no work, no pay" applies.
The grievance submitted on this loss of salary,
which was taken to the highest level, accordingly
falls under the provisions of section 95(3) and not
section 91(1). The grievance therefore cannot be
the subject of an appeal to a board of adjudication.
The application is dismissed with costs.
In order to be designated a party to a judicial
proceeding, a person must have an interest in the
case or matter before the court. Accordingly, such
a person is entitled to make representations to the
court, or to be represented by counsel in order to
protect his or her interest. On the other hand,
neither the court nor the person or persons con
stituting the court can personally have any interest
in the litigation nor can they directly or indirectly
participate in it even where it might relate to a
proceeding ultimately resulting in an order that
would require them to perform certain judicial
functions. They are prohibiteli from making
' Public Service Staff Relations Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. P-35.
representations or being represented by counsel in
another court in such circumstances. It follows
that the style of cause, in a proceeding in a higher
court with a power of supervision over the lower
court, should never identify the lower court as a
party to the cause.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the style of
cause in the proceeding at bar be varied to read:
IN THE MATTER OF the Public Service Staff Relations Act,
R.S.C. 1970, chapter P-35,
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for adjudication by
CLAUDE GOBEIL, made to the Public Service Staff Relations
Board,
AND IN THE MATTER OF a refusal by an Adjudicator of the
Public Service Staff Relations Board, dated May 20, 1980, to
hear the application for adjudication on the ground of a lack of
jurisdiction,
BETWEEN:
CLAUDE GOBEIL
applicant
—and—
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, represented
by the Attorney General of Canada
respondent.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.