Chong v. Canada ( Attorney General )
T-2490-94
McKeown J.
30/11/95
19 pp.
Judicial review of decision applicants' position classified at PM-03 level-Grievors employed as intelligence analysts (PM03) with B.C./Yukon region, Citizenship and Immigration-Classification review determining position would remain at PM03 group and level-In 1990, B.C./Yukon job description for intelligence analyst position used as model for job description for intelligence analyst position in Ontario region-Ontario positions reclassified to PM-04 level in 1992-Applicants grieved job classification-Presenting written representations, oral arguments, various documents relating to grievance to committee-No management representative at meeting pursuant to Classification Grievance Procedure (CGP) guidelines-Only information received from management obtained by telephone from Mr. Kent who, at request of committee, answered several questions relating to job content after applicants making submissions-Substance of Mr. Kent's information not communicated to applicants-Applicants given neither opportunity to respond to evidence provided by Mr. Kent nor to present arguments relating to evidence or information-Committee recommending positions remain at PM-03 group and level-Deputy Head's nominee approving committee's recommendation-During review, committee lowering position's point total by 20 points based on information provided by Mr. Kent-Decision neither addressing nor referring to grievor's submissions, evidence concerning Ontario position nor providing any reasons why B.C./Yukon position should be classified at lower level-Ontario and B.C./Yukon job descriptions almost identical except that three additional duties imposed on B.C. employees-As present case administrative hearing, applicants only entitled to minimum level of fairness-(1) No case to be met herein-That management entitled to detail description of job, specifically recognized by Parliament by excluding classification grievances from adjudication procedures-Onus on applicants to prove classification wrong-Procedures provided by Treasury Board meeting requirements of fairness-Grievors given opportunity to be heard-No restriction on participation-Provided with all material from departmental classification committee-Man-agement not permitted to argue for or against classification selected-Management only permitted to answer questions directed to it by committee-As not adversarial process, appropriate both grievors and management should answer questions in absence of other-Committee not noting responses to questions posed to management representative in its reasons as required by CGP-(2) Classification Standard stating objective of job evaluation to determine relative value of positions in each occupational group; relation of position being rated to positions above and below it in organization also studied-Possibly good reasons for distinction between Ontario and B.C./Yukon job descriptions, but nothing in evidence upon which such conclusion could be made-Patently unreasonable error and ignoring relevant evidence when committee clearly misapprehended grievors' position and stating grievors seeking reclassification of Ontario position-Without proper consideration of Ontario position, difficult to determine whether aims met-Patently unreasonable to say Ontario position not relevant when job descriptions same and same deputy head approving both classification standards-Principles of equality, consistency requiring two jobs whose job descriptions apparently same to be classified equally unless reasons for treating them differently-Grievors stating no material differences between two positions-To ignore Ontario position contrary to common law and policies of Treasury Board-Application allowed-Financial Administration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-11, ss. 5(4), 7(1), 11(2)(c)-Public Service Staff Relations Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-35, ss. 7, 91, 92, 96(3).