Allard et al. v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency,

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: de Montigny, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Citation: 2012 FC 979,(2012), 417 F.T.R. 1 (FC)
• Date: 13 February 2012

Allard v. CFIA (2012), 417 F.T.R. 1 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2012] F.T.R. TBEd. AU.025

Christiane Allard, Marie-André Frédette, Hélène Gagnon, El Mehdi Haddou, Alain Lajoie, Sonya Laurendeau, Julie Nagel, Daniel Perron, France Provost, Marie-Claude Simard, Hélène Soucy et Geneviève Toupin (demandeurs) v. Agence Canadienne d'Inspection des Aliments (défenderesse)

(T-1070-11; 2012 CF 979; 2012 FC 979)

Indexed As: Allard et al. v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Federal Court

de Montigny, J.

August 10, 2012.

Summary:

The applicants held the position of Area Program Specialist, Veterinary Medicine, in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's Quebec area. In accordance with the Agency's Classification Grievance Process, the applicants filed grievances disputing the classification of the position VM-03 group and level. They did not dispute their assignment to the occupational group, but requested that the position be given a higher classification. After receiving arguments and additional information on seven key activities from the applicants, the Classification Grievance Committee contacted the applicants' supervisors and managers for details on the seven activities. The Committee recommended that the positions in question be classified at the VM-03 group and level. The Agency's Vice President of Human Resources approved the Committee's recommendation. The applicants applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court allowed the application and set aside the Vice President's decisions dismissing the grievance.

Labour Law - Topic 9353

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - Decisions of adjudicators, arbitrators, grievance appeal boards or officers - Scope of review (incl. standard) - The applicants held the position of Area Program Specialist, Veterinary Medicine, in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's Quebec area - In accordance with the Agency's Classification Grievance Process, the applicants filed grievances disputing the classification of the position VM-03 group and level - They did not dispute their assignment to the occupational group, but requested that the position be given a higher classification - The Classification Grievance Committee recommended that the positions in question be classified at the VM-03 group and level - The Agency's Vice President of Human Resources approved the recommendation - The applicants applied for judicial review - The Federal court stated that "the Committee's report and the Vice President's decision must be analyzed as a whole for the purposes of this application for judicial review. Although the Vice President is the only one authorized to make a decision in a classification grievance, it is clear that he made this decision relying on the Committee's report. When he endorsed the Committee's recommendation, in particular, he implicitly adopted the reasons. Therefore, the Vice President's decision does not separate the Committee's assessment of the grievance and any error that it may have made will invalidate the Vice President's decision. ... Both parties agree on the standards of review applicable to the two issues in this case. There is no doubt that an issue relating to a classification grievance is a question of mixed fact and law that is within the expertise of the final level decision-maker." - See paragraphs 19 and 20.

Labour Law - Topic 9805

Public service labour relations - Job classification - Appeals or grievances - The applicants held the position of Area Program Specialist, Veterinary Medicine, in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's Quebec area - In accordance with the Agency's Classification Grievance Process, the applicants filed grievances disputing the classification of the position VM-03 group and level - They did not dispute their assignment to the occupational group, but requested that the position be given a higher classification - After receiving arguments and additional information on seven key activities from the applicants, the Classification Grievance Committee contacted the applicants' supervisors and managers for details on the seven activities - The Committee recommended that the positions in question be classified at the VM-03 group and level - The Agency's Vice President of Human Resources approved the Committee's recommendation - The Federal Court allowed the applicants' judicial review application - The Grievance Classification Process made it clear that a classification grievance could not include disagreement concerning the work description content and that a work description content grievance took precedence over a classification grievance - Although the applicants' work description was not formally identified as a generic description, it applied to all positions occupied by the applicants - The applicants and the Agency had agreed on the description following a content grievance under the collective agreement - In their submissions to the Committee, the supervisors and managers called into question the very nature of the activities listed in the work description - The Committee did not merely assess the frequency or degree to which the duties in the description were performed, but exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying the description itself without giving the applicants an opportunity of being heard by an arbitrator - That breach of the principles of natural justice alone would have sufficed to invalidate the Committee's decision - However, minimizing and even modifying certain duties allocated to the applicants in the description had a determinative impact on the Committee's classification - Although the description was not the only element that the Committee had to consider, it was crucial for the classification of a position - Where a Classification Committee identified a fundamental disagreement between the parties regarding the work description that it had to assess, the Committee should remove itself from the grievance until there was an agreement or, where applicable, an arbitral decision on the description - By not doing so here, the Committee breached the applicants' rights and rendered an unreasonable decision - See paragraphs 22 to 41.

Labour Law - Topic 9822

Public service labour relations - Job description - Amendment of - [See Labour Law - Topic 9805 ].

Cases Noticed:

Peck v. Parks Canada (2010), 359 F.T.R. 136; 2009 FC 686, refd to. [para. 20].

Spencer v. Canada (Attorney General) (2010), 360 F.T.R. 251; 2010 FC 33, refd to. [para. 20].

Adamidis et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board), [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 120; 2006 FC 243, refd to. [para. 20].

Utovac v. Canada (Treasury Board) (2006), 293 F.T.R. 296; 2006 FC 643, refd to. [para. 20].

Beauchemin v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2008), 364 F.T.R. 159; 2008 FC 186, refd to. [para. 20].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 20].

Sketchley v. Canada (Attorney General), [2006] 3 F.C.R. 392; 344 N.R. 257; 2005 FCA 404, refd to. [para. 21].

Grauer et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 146; 2009 FC 242, refd to. [para. 21].

Currie et al. v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2005] F.T.R. Uned. A08; 2005 FC 733, revd. [2007] 1 F.C.R. 471; 350 N.R. 252; 2006 FCA 194, refd to. [para. 24].

Eksal et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2006), 348 N.R. 75; 2006 FCA 50, refd to. [para. 35].

Counsel:

Lise Leduc, for the applicants;

Marie-Josée Montreuil, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicants;

Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 13, 2012, by de Montigny, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on August 10, 2012.