A-913-80
The Queen (Applicant)
v.
Barbara J. Robb (Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Pratte and Ryan JJ. and Kerr
D.J.—Ottawa, September 16, 1981.
Judicial review — Public Service — Respondent was
required to pay for a shortage of cash resulting from the
performance of her duties pursuant to the terms of her
employment — No allegation of fault or negligence —
Respondent filed a grievance disputing her obligation to make
up the shortage — Whether grievance relates to a disciplinary
action — Whether grievance could be referred to adjudication
under s. 91(1) of the Public Service Staff Relations Act —
Application allowed — Public Service Staff Relations Act,
R.S.C. 1970, c. P-35, s. 91(1) — Federal Court Act, R.S.C.
1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, s. 28.
APPLICATION for judicial review.
COUNSEL:
Walter Nisbet, Q.C. and Harvey A. Newman
for applicant.
John B. West for respondent.
John E. McCormick for Public Service Staff
Relations Board.
SOLICITORS:
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
applicant.
Perley-Robertson, Panet, Hill & McDougall,
Ottawa, for respondent.
The following are the reasons for judgment
delivered orally in English by
PRArrE J.: The sole problem raised by this
section 28 application is whether the respondent's
grievance could be referred to adjudication under
subsection 91(1) of the Public Service Staff Rela
tions Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. P-35.
The respondent's grievance clearly does not
relate to the application or interpretation of a
collective agreement or an arbitral award. The
question, therefore, is whether it relates to discipli
nary action resulting in discharge, suspension or a
financial penalty.
The facts on record may be easily summarized.
The respondent was employed by the Post Office
Department as a wicket clerk in a post office. At
the end of a day of work, she sustained a shortage
of cash in the amount of $300. The employer later
requested her to pay that amount, not because of
any fault or negligence on her part but on the sole
ground that under the terms of her employment
she had the obligation to make up any shortage of
money resulting from the performance of her
duties. The respondent took the position that, in
the circumstances, she had no such obligation.
However, in the end, she nevertheless paid the
amount of $300 and filed a grievance claiming its
reimbursement.
In my view, the sole issue raised by the respond
ent's grievance is whether, in the circumstances,
she had the obligation to compensate her employ
er. As I see it, the grievance does not relate to a
disciplinary action since it is clear that the employ
er never took any steps to punish or blame the
respondent and never even suggested that she had
acted negligently or improperly. That grievance, in
my opinion, merely relates to an action taken by
the employer to incite the respondent to perform
what the employer perceived as her obligation
under her employment; it could not, therefore, be
referred to adjudication.
I would, for these reasons, grant the application
and set aside the decision under attack.
* * *
RYAN J. concurred.
* * *
KERR D.J. concurred.
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.