Peck v. Parks Canada

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: de Montigny, J.
• Date: 12 May 2009
• Citation: 2009 FC 686,(2009), 359 F.T.R. 136 (FC)
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)

Peck v. Parks Can. (2009), 359 F.T.R. 136 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] F.T.R. TBEd. JA.017

Warren Peck (applicant) v. Parks Canada (respondent)

(T-1870-07; 2009 FC 686)

Indexed As: Peck v. Parks Canada

Federal Court

de Montigny, J.

June 30, 2009.

Summary:

Peck was an asset manager for Parks Canada at the EG-07 level, first (until April 2005) on a secondment from Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) and after April 2005, as an employee of Parks Canada. When he became an employee of Parks Canada, Peck retained his EG-07 classification, despite the fact that most other asset managers were then classified at the lower AS-05 level. Historically, Parks Canada had relied on PWGSC to provide engineering expertise. When it became a separate agency, Parks Canada decided to improve its engineering capacity by, inter alia, hiring professional engineers (with an engineering degree) in all future asset manager vacancies. These positions were classified in the PM (Program Management) group. Incumbent asset managers with an engineering degree were retroactively reclassified to the PM group. Other asset managers who did not have an engineering degree were retroactively reclassified from the AS-05 level to the EG-07 level. Peck did not have an engineering degree and did not receive an increase in level, but remained at the EG-07 level. Peck brought a classification level grievance. The grievance was denied. Peck applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

Judicial review - General - Scope or standard of review - At issue was the standard of review to be applied to a final level classification grievance decision made under the Public Service Labour Relations Act (PSLRA) - The Federal Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness - Decisions under the predecessor statute (the Public Service Staff Relations Act (PSSRA)) were reviewable against the standard of patent unreasonableness - The grieving procedure under the PSLRA was quite similar to that found in the PSSRA - The privative clauses in the two statutes were identical - The same standard of review should apply to both - Further, a contextual analysis indicated a standard of deference - The issue was one of mixed fact and law, involving an understanding of the employer's classification scheme including the interplay of policies and procedures as well as a comprehensive understanding of the underlying principles - The decision maker had expertise in the area and was in the best position to understand the policies and principles involved in classification standards and the application of those standards to the particular facts - For all of those reasons, the appropriate standard was reasonableness - Such a standard was satisfied if the decision was supported by any reasons that stood up to a somewhat probing examination - See paragraphs 17 to 26.

Labour Law - Topic 9353

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - Decisions of adjudicators, arbitrators, grievance appeal boards or officers - Scope of review - Standard - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3202 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9605

Public service labour relations - Collective agreement - Job classifications - Reclassification - [See Labour Law - Topic 9625 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9625

Public service labour relations - Collective agreement - Management rights - Work assignments and job classifications - Peck was an asset manager for Parks Canada at the EG-07 level, first (until April 2005) on a secondment from Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) and after April 2005, as an employee of Parks Canada - When he became an employee of Parks Canada, Peck retained his EG-07 classification, despite the fact that most other asset managers were then classified at the lower AS-05 level - Historically, Parks Canada had relied on PWGSC to provide engineering expertise - When it became a separate agency, Parks Canada decided to improve its engineering capacity by, inter alia, hiring professional engineers (with an engineering degree) in all future asset manager vacancies - These positions were classified in the PM (Program Management) group - Incumbent asset managers with an engineering degree were retroactively reclassified to the PM group - Other asset managers who did not have an engineering degree were retroactively reclassified from the AS-05 level to the EG-07 level - Peck did not have an engineering degree and did not receive an increase in level, but remained at the EG-07 level - Peck brought a classification level grievance, asserting that he should have been classified at the PM-06 level due to his experience and the fact that he had performed the duties of the PM-06 position at a superior level while working in an EG-07 position - The grievance was denied - The Federal Court dismissed Peck's application for judicial review - Under s. 7 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, Parks Canada's authority to set the terms and conditions of employment, including classification, was unrestricted - Implied in the power to classify was the power to determine the classification standard and minimum qualifications for positions - In requiring an engineering degree and engineering certification, Parks Canada was exercising its wide grant of managerial authority - Once it was accepted that Parks Canada had this authority for the future, there was no basis on which to deny that same authority on a retroactive basis - Further, the court rejected Peck's assertion that "equal pay for equal work" applied - Parks Canada's position that the work performed by non-engineers was not equal to the work performed by engineers was reasonable - See paragraphs 27 to 45.

Labour Law - Topic 9805

Public service labour relations - Job classification - Appeals or grievances - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3202 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9829

Public service labour relations - Job description - Degree requirements - [See Labour Law - Topic 9625 ].

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 17].

Trépanier et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 259 F.T.R. 86; 2004 FC 1326, refd to. [para. 17].

Adamidis et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board), [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 120; 2006 FC 243, refd to. [para. 17].

Utovac v. Canada (Treasury Board) (2006), 293 F.T.R. 256; 2006 FC 643, refd to. [para. 17].

Julien et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2008), 325 F.T.R. 263; 2008 FC 115, refd to. [para. 17].

Cox v. Canada (Attorney General), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 422; 2008 FC 596, refd to. [para. 17].

Ryan v. Canada (Attorney General) (2005), 268 F.T.R. 161; 2005 FC 65, refd to. [para. 20].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 23].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207, refd to. [para. 23].

Zimmermanni (Hillarie) v. Canada (Treasury Board) (D.I.A.N.D.), 2008 PSLRB 87, refd to. [para. 29].

Public Service Alliance of Canada et al. v. Canadian Grain Commission and Canada (Treasury Board) et al. (1986), 5 F.T.R. 51 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 33].

Brescia et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board) et al. (2005), 337 N.R. 154; 2005 FCA 236, refd to. [para. 33].

Brochu v. Canada (Treasury Board), [1992] F.C.J. No. 1057 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Babcock et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2005] B.C.T.C. 513; 2005 BCSC 513, refd to. [para. 36].

I.M.P. Group Ltd. v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Local 2215 et al. (2002), 205 N.S.R.(2d) 179; 643 A.P.R. 179 (S.C.), dist. [para. 38].

Montreal Children's Hospital v. Federation of United Nurses Union, Local 220 (1974), 8 L.A.C.(2d) 17, dist. [para. 38].

Sunbeam Home v. London and District Service Workers Employees' Union, Local 368 (1977), 14 L.A.C.(2d) 350, dist. [para. 38].

Gvildys v. Canada (Treasury Board - Health Canada), 2002 PSSRB 86, refd to. [para. 44].

Counsel:

Colin D. Bryson, for the applicant, Warren Peck;

Richard Fader, for the respondent, Parks Canada.

Solicitors of Record:

Blois, Nickerson & Bryson Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the applicant, Warren Peck;

Department of Justice, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, Parks Canada.

This application was heard at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on May 12, 2009, by de Montigny, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for order on June 30, 2009.