Union's Decision Not to Refer Disability Accommodation Grievance Upheld

Date: 202 60326 File : 561-02-53040 Citation: 2026 FPSLREB 27 Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act Before a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board [NAME] Complainant and [NAME] OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, [NAME] Respondent Indexed as [NAME] v. [NAME] of Public Employees, [NAME] In the matter of a complaint made under s. 190 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act Before: [NAME] , a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board For the Complainant: [NAME] For the Respondent: [redacted] Decided on the basis of written submissions, filed August 25, September 18, and October 2, 2025 .

REASONS FOR

DECISION I. Complaint before the Board [ 1 ] On August 25, 2025, [NAME] (“the complainant”) made a complaint under s. 190(1)(g) of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, s. 2; “the Act ”) against the [NAME] of Public Employees, [NAME] (“the respondent”) because it did not refer her disability accommodation grievance to adjudication. [ 2 ] Her grievance was filed on December 18, 2024. It alleged that her employer failed to accommodate her and that it discriminated against her on the basis of disability when it stopped her pay and allowances because she did not provide additional medical information about her sick leave. [ 3 ] The complainant submitted that cases involving disability accommodation breaches require greater scrutiny by a union. She argued that the respondent’s decision not to represent her was devoid of any “hallmarks of a reasonable decision”. In essence, she argued that the reasons for denying the referral to adjudication were inadequate. [ 4 ] The respondent replied to the complaint by filing a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the complaint discloses no arguable case of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad-faith representation on its part, and on the merits. It argued that it represented the complainant fairly at all levels of the grievance process. Its [NAME] declined to refer her grievance to adjudication because there was little to no chance that it would succeed. [ 5 ] The respondent agreed that greater care is owed grievances involving allegations that the duty to accommodate was breached. Nonetheless, it submitted that there is no obligation to provide grievors with written reasons. [ 6 ] The matter was referred to a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (“the Board”) on October 22, 2025, to determine whether the respondent’s motion to dismiss the matter could proceed by way of written submissions. After reviewing all the parties’ submissions, I decided that the matter could be decided on the basis of written submissions per the Board’s authority under s. 22 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act (S.C. 2013, c. 40, s. 365). [ 7 ] The complainant made no allegations of bad-faith or discriminatory conduct on a prohibited ground. Therefore, my analysis focuses on whether she made out an arguable case of arbitrary conduct in the decision-making process that led to her grievance not being referred to adjudication. [ 8 ] Based on a review of the submissions and the complainant’s allegations, I find that the complainant failed to establish an arguable case of a breach of s. 187 of the Act . Since, I have determined the matter on this basis alone, I have not assessed the complaint on the merits. Therefore, the respondent’s motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed. I fully explain my reasons in the paragraphs that follow.

II. Summary of the complainant’s allegations [ 9 ] The complainant filed a Form 16 with the Board in which she referred to the respondent as “R” for “respondent” and to herself, the complainant, as “C”. Form 16 is a standard PDF form of the Board that is used to file complaints under section 190 of the Act . She stated the following in Box 4, which requires a concise statement of the act or omission that gave rise to the complaint: The R declined to refer the C’s disability accommodation grievance to adjudication. Although the R is afforded wide latitude to make such decisions, greater DFR scrutiny will be attached to cases involving termination, discipline or disability accommodation. The decision of the R is devoid of any hallmarks of a reasonable decision: recite employer decision; summarize facts, evidence, case law and legislation; and offer a cogent assessment of the case on the merits based on the aforesaid. The decision documents are completely devoid of any of these hallmarks. [ 10 ] As a corrective measure, the complainant requested the following: “[NAME] to take and carry on on behalf of the C any proceeding that the Board considers that [NAME] ought to have taken and carried on on the C’s behalf or ought to have assisted the C to take and carry on.” [ 11 ] The complainant attached the employer’s final-level grievance reply of July 15, 2025, in which it determined that she had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and that she had provided no evidence to support a violation of articles 1, 3, 5, 6, and 17 of the collective agreement between the [NAME] and the respondent for the Law Enforcement Support and Police Operations Support group that expired on December 31, 2025. [ 12 ] The complainant also attached the respondent’s [NAME]’s decision of August 10, 2025. In its decision, the [NAME] decided not to proceed with her grievance and provided its decision through email. [ 13 ] The complainant attached a follow-up email from the respondent’s president, [NAME], which stated the following: [NAME], Following your request for the Union to refer your grievance to adjudication, the [NAME] met on July 23 and July 29, 2025, to review the matter. At the first meeting on July 23, the grievance information was presented by [NAME], including the Employer’s decisions at Levels 1, 2, and 3. [NAME] members asked questions and discussed the matter, and it was agreed that additional time was needed for a full review of the documents before making a decision. Between the first and second meetings, each member reviewed the grievance materials in detail. At the second meeting on July 29, members sought clarification, discussed the evidence, and considered whether the current information met the threshold required to proceed to adjudication. The [NAME] concluded that the available information was not sufficient to proceed, and that no additional information was expected that could change this outcome. As a result, the [NAME] voted unanimously not to refer your grievance to adjudication. This letter also confirms that we have received your request to appeal the [NAME]’s decision. In accordance with the Union’s bylaws and procedures, your appeal will be forwarded to the Executive for consideration. You will be advised in writing once the Executive has made its decision. If you become aware of new and relevant information that was not previously provided, you may forward it to the Union for consideration as part of your appeal. … [ 14 ] The complainant filed a “Notice of Appeal” of the [NAME]’s decision on August 11, 2025. [ 15 ] On August 12, 2025, the complainant wrote to the respondent’s president, to thank her for responding to her letter, and she requested more insight on the following: 1) the articles considered for adjudication; 2) the evidence considered in support of those articles; 3) the facts that were analyzed that gave rise to the [NAME]’s decision; 4) the relevant legislation that gave rise to the [NAME]’s decision; 5) the case law supporting the [NAME]’s decision; and 6) any other factors that the [NAME] considered that gave rise to its decision. [ 16 ] The respondent sent the grievor its appeal decision on August 25, 2025, as follows: … Your grievance regarding discrimination on the basis of medical condition (File No. GR-2024-002) has now been reviewed by the [NAME] and the Executive. All documentation and submissions were considered in advance of the Executive meeting on August 19, 2025. Because the threshold was not met, the Executive determined unanimously (with one abstention by your representative) that grievance GR-2024-002 will not be referred to arbitration. We want to emphasize that your grievance was given full and fair consideration and that it was defended diligently by [NAME] through all available internal levels. Thank-you / Merci, [NAME] / Présidente [NAME] / [NAME] … III. Arguments and analysis [ 17 ] The following is a summary of the parties’ arguments. A. Summary of the respondent’s arguments [ 18 ] The respondent submits that the Board should dismiss the complaint without a hearing on the grounds that it discloses no arguable case of a breach of s. 190(1) of the Act and on the merits. [ 19 ] The complainant has the burden of proof in this matter. This means that she must provide sufficient evidence to establish a breach (see [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2009 PSLRB 107 at para. 31). The bar is high (see [NAME] v. [NAME] of Canada Secretariat , 2010 PSLRB 128 at para. 38). [ 20 ] The Board has often applied an arguable-case analysis in these kinds of cases (see [NAME] v. Unifor, Local 2182 , 2020 FPSLREB 119 at paras. 82 to 84; and [NAME] v. [NAME] of Canada , 2022 FPSLREB 48 [ [NAME] 2022], at paras. 48 and 49). [ 21 ] The respondent argues that on its face, the complaint is clear that the respondent represented the complainant throughout all stages of the grievance process and that the [NAME] diligently reviewed her grievance. She availed herself of the right of appeal set out in the respondent’s bylaws and was given the opportunity to provide additional information for consideration. [ 22 ] The respondent argues that the complainant is dissatisfied with the level of detail in the reasons. However, she has not made any allegation of conduct that was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. [ 23 ] The respondent notes that the Board’s role is not to decide whether the respondent made the best or the correct decision. Rather, the Board must determine if the respondent’s decision making was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. [ 24 ] Consequently, the complainant could not use a duty-of-fair-representation complaint as an appeal of the respondent’s decision just because she disagrees with its decision. [ 25 ] On the facts of the case, the respondent submits that it did the following: · assessed the case; · reviewed the relevant facts and information; · solicited input from the complainant; · reviewed her appeal with additional inputs; and · made a unanimous decision not to proceed to adjudication, on the merits. [ 26 ] With respect to what is considered arbitrary conduct, the respondent refers to the concept set out at paragraph 50 of [NAME] v. Société d’énergie de la Baie James , 2001 SCC 39. [ 27 ] The respondent also notes that the scope of the duty of fair representation is limited to the Act . The Board has held that a union does not have a duty of fair representation for matters that arise outside the relevant collective agreement. [ 28 ] Therefore, any assertions that the complainant is owed a duty of fair representation in proceedings under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. R-10; “the RCMP Act ”) must fail. [ 29 ] Further, the respondent argued that it does not owe its members extensive written reasons as to why it will not refer a grievance to adjudication. [ 30 ] The respondent submits that the complainant is not entitled to written reasons for its decision not to proceed with her grievance (see [NAME] v. [NAME], General & Professional Workers’ Union , 2004 CanLII 12390 (ON LRB) at para. 20). B. Summary of the complainant’s arguments [ 31 ] In response to the motion to dismiss, the complainant agrees that her complaint pertains only to the process that gave rise to the respondent’s decision not to refer her grievance to adjudication and whether that violated the duty of fair representation that she is owed. [ 32 ] The complainant argues that the party that made the motion must demonstrate whether it is plain and obvious that the claim cannot succeed (see [NAME] v. Association of Canadian Financial Officers , 2022 FPSLREB 30). [ 33 ] The Board must assume that the facts are true when it takes the complaint form into account and determine whether an arguable case has been made out. [ 34 ] The complainant submits that sufficient information exists in the record to demonstrate an arguable case, based on the complaint form, and that the process that gave rise to the respondent’s decision not to refer the grievance was arbitrary. [ 35 ] The complainant argues that the respondent did not provide her with any reasons for its decision and that it provided no evidence that it put its mind to the merits of the grievance or that it made a reasoned judgment about its outcome. [ 36 ] The complainant argues that in [NAME] v. [NAME] of Canada , 2022 FPSLREB 62, and [NAME] v. [NAME] of Canada , 2024 FPSLREB 87, the Board offered guidance on what it considers sufficient reasons. [ 37 ] In [NAME] , the Board found that the following constituted sufficient reasons by a union to decline to refer a grievance to adjudication: · explain the employer’s decision; · provide a summary of the relevant facts, legislation, and case law; · provide an assessment of the likelihood of success at adjudication; and · explain that the grievance did not have sufficient merit to warrant a referral to the Board. [ 38 ] The complainant argues that the respondent appears to concede that it did not provide sufficient reasons when it states that it does not have an obligation to provide written reasons. [ 39 ] The complainant’s position is that the respondent did not provide any reasons at all. [ 40 ] The complainant argues that according to [NAME] v. [NAME], Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) , 2004 [NAME] 290, disability accommodation is one of three categories that attract greater scrutiny with respect to the duty of fair representation. If a union fails to make a reasonable assessment, it may be found to have acted arbitrarily. [ 41 ] The respondent failed to comply with this framework. It did not recite the employer’s decision, summarize the relevant facts, evidence, case law, and legislation, and offer a cogent assessment of the case on its merits. Further, it did not inform the complainant as to the reasons for not referring the grievance to adjudication. [ 42 ] Therefore, based on the contents of the complaint form, the complainant has made out a prima facie case of a breach of s. 190(1)(g) of the Act . [ 43 ] With respect to the merits, the complainant argues that the respondent has admitted to providing insufficient reasons but claims that it does not owe its members extensive written communication on the reasons that a grievance was not referred to adjudication. [ 44 ] The dearth of reasons in the respondent’s decision not to refer the grievance to adjudication amounts to arbitrary conduct within the meaning of paragraph 37 of [NAME] . C. Analysis [ 45 ] The issues that I must determine are as follows:

1) Has the complainant met her burden of establishing an arguable case of a breach of s. 190(1)(g) of the Act ? 2) If so, has she established a breach of the respondent’s duty of fair representation? [ 46 ] The complainant bears the burden of establishing an arguable case of a breach of s. 190(1)(g) of the Act . [ 47 ] The complainant’s pleadings do not raise allegations of bad-faith or discriminatory conduct by the respondent. Therefore, I will focus solely on the allegations that it acted in an arbitrary manner by deciding not to refer her grievance to adjudication. [ 48 ] The Board has repeatedly applied an arguable-case framework to determine whether it is appropriate to dismiss a complaint. This requires taking as true all the allegations and asking whether they are sufficient to make out an arguable case that the respondent contravened s. 187 of the Act without considering any defence by the respondent (see [NAME] v. [NAME] of Canada , 2024 FPSLREB 168 [ [NAME] 2024], at para 10; See also [NAME] v. Unifor, Local 2182 at para 83)

IV. No judicial standard of review applies to the duty of fair representation [ 49 ] In the case before me, the complainant’s allegations are somewhat confusing. In her Form 16, she notes that the respondent’s decision not to refer her grievance to adjudication lacked all the “hallmarks of a reasonable decision”. [ 50 ] In her reply, the complainant argues that the respondent provided no reasons at all. She also notes that it did not provide a reasonable assessment in its refusal and, this could constitute arbitrary conduct. [ 51 ] Clearly, the complainant was dissatisfied with the respondent’s decision not to refer her grievance to adjudication. It represented her throughout the three levels of the internal grievance process, and her representative also made submissions to the respondent’s [NAME]. She was surprised when it decided not to pursue her grievance to adjudication, particularly given that it raised issues of a breach of the employer’s duty to accommodate and of discrimination on the basis of disability. [ 52 ] However, the complainant cannot import a judicial standard of review from administrative law to the respondent’s duty of fair representation. Such a standard does not apply in this case. [ 53 ] In [NAME] 2024, at para. 21, the Board noted the following: [21] The complainant confounds judicial standards of review with the test for a duty of fair representation complaint, but they are not the same thing. The Board does not sit as a review or appeal court over union decisions, to assess their correctness or reasonableness. A union’s decision to refer a grievance to adjudication is its to make, as long as it makes that decision in a way that is not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith as clearly set out in s. 187 of the Act. [ 54 ] The complainant has attempted to do the same thing. Nowhere in s. 187 of the Act is a union’s duty of fair representation subject to a reasonableness standard. Moreover, the leading authority on the duty of fair representation, Canadian Merchant Service Guild v. Gagnon , [1984] 1 SCR 509, on which the Board has consistently relied, does not impose a reasonableness standard of review on a union’s duty of fair representation. That case sets out the principles as follows: … The exclusive power conferred on a union to act as spokesman for the employees in a bargaining unit entails a corresponding obligation on the union to fairly represent all employees comprised in the unit… When, as is true here and is generally the case, the right to take a grievance to arbitration is reserved to the union, the employee does not have an absolute right to arbitration and the union enjoys considerable discretion… This discretion must be exercised in good faith, objectively and honestly, after a thorough study of the grievance and the case, taking into account the significance of the grievance and of its consequences for the employee on the one hand and the legitimate interests of the union on the other… The union’s decision must not be arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory or wrongful. … 5. The representation by the union must be fair, genuine and not merely apparent, undertaken with integrity and competence, without serious or major negligence, and without hostility towards the employee. … [ 55 ] In their submissions, both parties agree that a union has wide latitude when exercising its discretion not to refer a grievance to adjudication. [ 56 ] As Canadian Merchant Service Guild underlines, unions are political organizations that must consider not only the interests of individual members but also the collective interests. [ 57 ] While not all unions are alike, even the best-resourced unions do not have unlimited resources. They must make decisions that advance their legitimate objectives, such as advancing equity and human rights in the workplace, promoting health and safety, and campaigning for better overall compensation. They must do so in a way that balances collective interests with the particular interests of an individual member in advancing their grievance. [ 58 ] Other factors that unions consider when deciding whether to take grievances to adjudication include the importance of grievances for their members, the validity of a given grievance based on the available evidence and the relevant collective agreement, the interests of other employees and the bargaining unit as a whole, as well as internal political pressures that may not always be evident to a rank-and-file member. [ 59 ] Moreover, while the broad discretion that unions enjoy cannot be exercised arbitrarily, it does provide them with significant leeway in decision-making processes on representation.

V. No arguable case of arbitrary conduct [ 60 ] The Board has applied the arguable case framework to determine whether it is appropriate to dismiss a complaint without a hearing. This requires me to determine whether, if all the complainant’s written allegations are taken as true, there is an arguable case of a breach of s. 187 of the Act ([NAME] 2022, at para 48; See also Quadrini , at para 32). [ 61 ] While there is no definition in s. 187 of the Act of arbitrary conduct, the Board has relied on the explanation of the concept of “arbitrary”, as the Supreme Court of Canada explained in [NAME] , at para. 50 (see most recently paragraph 47 of [NAME] v. Union of Canadian Transportation Employees , 2023 FPSLREB 43; and [NAME] v. [NAME] of Canada , 2025 FPSLREB 86. [ 62 ] This includes serious negligence. Further, a union can engage in arbitrary conduct without intending to cause harm. Arbitrariness goes to the way the union processed the grievance which includes how it reviewed the relevant facts or sought additional information or advice and how it treated the complainant throughout the process. If an investigation took place, it may also include how the union conducted it (see [NAME] , at para. 50). [ 63 ] Applying that concept to the arguable-case framework, I cannot find an arguable case of arbitrary conduct. [ 64 ] The complainant alleges that no reasons were provided and that the reasons provided were inadequate. First of all, I disagree with the complainant’s assertion that no reasons were provided. The [NAME] provided a justification for its decision not to refer the complainant’s grievance to adjudication on August 25, 2025. [ 65 ] Secondly, a union does not have an obligation to provide written reasons ([NAME] , at para 20 and [NAME] 2003 [NAME] 242 at para 26). The complainant provided no authority for her allegation that they are required. [ 66 ] Further, even if a union provides written reasons, there is no obligation that they be correct, comprehensive, or overly complex. [ 67 ] The legal principle covering the sufficiency of reasons that applies to the decisions of courts and tribunals does not apply to a union’s decision not to refer a grievance to adjudication (see Complainant v. [NAME] of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 955 , 2024 ALRB 74). While I agree with the Alberta Labour Relations Board’s comments at paragraph 55 of that case that written reasons give the union an opportunity to demonstrate that it has turned “… its mind to the merits of the grievance and reached a reasoned conclusion”, they are not required. [ 68 ] A union’s obligation as the exclusive representative for the bargaining unit is that it must carry out its duty of fair representation in a way that demonstrates that it has turned its mind to the grievance. It must consider all the information provided and come up with a determination without capriciousness or serious negligence, whether or not that decision favours the complainant. [ 69 ] The complainant cites [NAME] as guidance for the standard that a union must meet when deciding not to refer a grievance to adjudication. However, neither decision imposes a decision-making template on unions when they decide not to advance a grievance to adjudication. While a letter decision that provides a summary of the relevant facts, legislation, and case law and a detailed assessment of the merits of the case may be the gold standard, it is certainly not required. [ 70 ] Moreover, although a union is subject to greater scrutiny when handling duty-to-accommodate grievances and similar grievances alleging human rights breaches, the union continues to benefit from wide latitude in its duty of fair representation (see paragraph 84 of [NAME] ). [ 71 ] In this case, the complainant’s own allegations outline that the respondent did the following: · represented her at levels 1, 2, and 3 of the grievance process; · represented her before its [NAME] and answered questions; · informed her that she could provide additional information, if required; · presented to the [NAME] on July 23, 2025, and the grievance’s merits were discussed; · provided a decision to her on August 11, 2025, after meeting on July 23 and 29, 2025; · provided a decision on August 12, 2025, detailing the [NAME]’s decision, after receiving her letter of August 11, 2025; · helped her refer her grievance to the [NAME]; and · the [NAME] provided her with its decision in writing on August 25, 2025. [ 72 ] The complainant does not allege that her union representative misrepresented her before the [NAME] or [NAME]; nor does she argue that her representative made any errors or omissions when presenting the merits of her grievance. [ 73 ] In fact, in response to the [NAME]’s decision of August 11, 2025, the complainant acknowledged the following: … … The Union argued vociferously at all three levels that the Employee endured significant discrimination because of the actions of the Employer and it was apparent throughout the process that the Employer’s written reasons were inadequate based on the arguments presented by the Union. … [ 74 ] The Board does not stand as an appeal Board to second-guess the decisions of unions on whether to pursue adjudication. Doing so would be to act beyond the Board’s limited jurisdiction in duty-of-fair-representation complaints. It would also create unnecessary bottlenecks in a labour relations system that is already stretched. [ 75 ] The Board also notes that the scope of a union’s duty of fair representation complaint does not extend beyond matters that fall under the Act . Therefore, although the complainant raises some allegations in relation to matters that could fall under the RCMP Act , no duty of fair representation is owed for matters in a grievance that fall under the RCMP Act . [ 76 ] Looking at all the steps that the respondent took in its representation and decision-making processes that are outlined in the complainant’s submissions, I do not find the complainant has established an arguable case of arbitrary conduct. [ 77 ] The complainant’s union representative presented before the [NAME] on July 23, 2025, with her entire grievance package. This included the employer’s replies at all three levels of the grievance process. [ 78 ] The employer’s final-level response included a determination that the complainant refused to cooperate in the duty-to-accommodate process by failing to provide it with the required medical information to remain on sick leave. While a union must not uncritically adopt an employer’s reasoning, this was one element among many that was before the internal grievance committees. [ 79 ] The complainant does not dispute that the [NAME] took the time to review all the facts of her case and all the evidence before it, including adding an additional day to review and consider all the evidence. She simply wanted more detailed reasons to explain why her grievance was not ultimately pursued. While the [NAME] could have provided her with more fulsome reasons, it was not required to. [ 80 ] Moreover, the [NAME] provided the complainant with justification for not referring her grievance to adjudication. Its response about the complainant’s failure to meet the threshold required must be considered within the context of the respondent’s entire decision-making process and the union’s eventual determination that it could not advance her grievance any further. It would certainly not be the best use of limited union resources to refer grievances to adjudication that are unlikely to succeed. [ 81 ] The [NAME]’s decision noted that the information that was provided was insufficient to meet the threshold to refer the grievance to adjudication. In other words, the complainant’s grievance could not be referred because it lacked the elements required to succeed at adjudication. The complainant was invited to provide any additional information. The complainant was also informed that no new information was expected that could change the outcome. On appeal, the [NAME] agreed with the [NAME]’s assessment. [ 82 ] While the complainant has a right to the respondent’s duty of fair representation, she also had an obligation to provide the information required to allow the respondent to put its best foot forward on her behalf. In particular, duty-to-accommodate grievances often require medical information, to assess whether the duty to accommodate was triggered and whether all parties are cooperating in the multi-party inquiry that is the duty to accommodate (see Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud , [1992] 2 SCR 970). Advancing duty-to-accommodate grievances without sufficient information could set negative precedents that would not be in the interests of the complainant or the respondent as a whole. [ 83 ] In [NAME] , at para. 31, the Canada Industrial Relations Board provides its view as follows of how a union can fulfil its duty of fair representation in matters involving greater scrutiny, such as termination, serious discipline, or accommodation: [31] The union’s duty in this regard is open to greater scrutiny when a matter involves an employee’s termination, serious discipline that affects gainful employment or a disability that requires accommodation. On the other hand, not every grievance warrants an investigation… Where the evidence before the union is that a grievance is unlikely to succeed, it may be unreasonable in certain circumstances to expect the union to investigate new evidence brought forth by the employee …. [ 84 ] In this case, the complainant does not allege that she provided any new or relevant additional information to the [NAME] or the [NAME]. Instead, in her response to the [NAME]’s decision of August 11, 2025, she states that it would be an impossible task because the respondent did not provide her with fulsome reasons. [ 85 ] The complainant insists in her allegations that the respondent had to provide her with more information about its decision, not the reverse. The [NAME]’s final decision, noted that her grievance was fully and fairly examined and that it was diligently defended by her representative, which the complainant does not dispute. Most importantly, I find the [NAME] provided a rationale for its decision not to refer her grievance to adjudication and outlined the submissions and previous decision it had considered. While the decision of the [NAME] was succinct and perhaps difficult for the complainant to accept, this is an insufficient basis on which to establish an arguable case of a breach of s. 187. [ 86 ] Once a union establishes that it has turned its mind to the grievance, made a reasoned decision based on the documentation available and determined that a referral to adjudication is not appropriate, it has met its duty ([NAME] , at para 71, [NAME] v. [NAME] of Canada 2010 PSLRB 52 at para 47 and [NAME] v. [NAME] of the Public Service of Canada , 2023 FPSLREB 51 at para 94 ). [ 87 ] Whether or not the respondent’s decision was correct or whether it provided her with the fulsome reasons that she expected for a non-referral, I find, the respondent clearly turned its mind to the issues raised in her grievance. It provided a reasoned decision based on the documentation provided and determined that it would not refer the grievance to adjudication. [ 88 ] Therefore, taking all the complainant’s allegations as true, I find that the complainant has failed to meet her burden of establishing an arguable case that the respondent violated its duty of fair representation. [ 89 ] For all of the above reasons, the Board makes the following order: (The Order appears on the next page)

VI. Order [ 90 ] The motion to dismiss is allowed. [ 91 ] The complaint is dismissed. March 26, 2025 [NAME], a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board