Originally published at Making Your Voice Heard at PIPSC

Self-Representation 101: Use Case - Union Dropped Religious Exemption Denial Grievance and Told You That You Can't Grieve on Your Own (Saying It Relates to Collective Agreement) - WRONG, TWICE!

Another case of religious exemption denial and Union's lack of Support, and what you can do.

Preface: What I Heard from Members

I’ve had several members approach me with concerns after being told by their union Employment Relations Officers — whose role is to support members — that they could not file a grievance without union backing. This is not always true. In fact, it may reflect either a misunderstanding of grievance rights or a reluctance on the part of the union to get involved in difficult or precedent-setting cases.

This article explores the reality of grieving without union support, corrects one of the most persistent myths in public service labour relations, and shows what you can do if you’ve been told “you can’t grieve” — but believe you must.

One Real-Life Example: Denied Exemption, Abandoned Twice

A Canadian public servant whose religious exemption from the federal COVID-19 vaccination policy was denied turned to her union (PIPSC) for help. The union initially agreed to file a grievance — and so she placed her trust in them. But two years later, as the case approached the final step before adjudication, the union suddenly and without warning withdrew its support.

Even worse: the union told her she couldn’t continue the grievance on her own because it was “a matter under the Collective Agreement.”

This advice was factually incorrect. The issue in question — the denial of a religious accommodation — could be grieved individually as a violation of human rights and applicable workplace policy. She could and should have been informed of her right to grieve independently and supported to do so. But instead, she was left with emotional, psychological, and financial hardship — all while being told she had no further recourse.

Key Facts:

• The member’s belief was rooted in her Christian Orthodox upbringing, specifically her view that genetic modification of her body would be a sin against God’s creation.

• She was placed on extended leave without pay and experienced severe psychological and financial hardship.

• The union initially supported her grievance but later withdrew, arguing her belief did not meet the legal threshold under the Amselem test.

• The union acknowledged her sincerity but argued the religious connection was too weak.

• The member was never warned her documentation was insufficient, nor was she given an opportunity to revise or supplement it.

• By the time she received the final decision, she was told she could not proceed to adjudication alone.

• She felt betrayed and believed the union had intentionally misled her, waiting until it was too late to act on her own.

This article exists for people like her, and for the many other members who are told “you can’t grieve” — when in fact, you can.

Understanding the Myth

Many public servants are told the following by their union representatives:

• “You can’t file a grievance without union support.”

• “This issue isn’t covered by the collective agreement.”

• “It’s not worth grieving — you won’t win.”

These statements are not necessarily true.

The truth: You can file an individual grievance without union support, even if the grievance relates to a clause in the collective agreement — as long as the issue affects you individually.

Legal Foundation: Your Right to Grieve

Under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (FPSLRA):

Section 208(1):
"An employee who feels aggrieved by the interpretation or application, in respect of the employee, of a provision of a collective agreement or arbitral award, or by any other occurrence or matter affecting the employee’s terms and conditions of employment, is entitled to present a grievance."

This means that unless you're filing a policy or group grievance (which require union sponsorship), you can grieve on your own.

Clarifying the Grievance Types (From the PIPSC RE Group Agreement)

1. Individual Grievance

Filed by an employee for personal issues (e.g., harassment, discipline, religious discrimination, leave denial).

1. Group Grievance

Filed by the union on behalf of multiple employees affected by the same issue.

1. Policy Grievance

Filed by the union when it believes a provision of the CA has been misinterpreted in a way affecting all members.

When You Don’t Need Union Support

You do not need union support if:

• The grievance is personal.

• It is about how a policy or clause in the CA was applied to you specifically.

• You are grieving based on a protected right (e.g., human rights, accommodation).

PIPSC RE Agreement, Article 18.01:
“An employee who feels aggrieved by the interpretation or application, in respect of the employee, of a provision of this Agreement is entitled to present a grievance.”

You can file that grievance yourself.

When You Do Need Union Involvement

You need the union only if:

• It’s a group grievance

• It’s a policy grievance

For everything else, you’re entitled to act individually.

What a Good Union Should Do

A supportive and professional union should:

• Inform you of your right to file independently.

• Help draft or review your grievance even if they choose not to carry it forward.

• Respect your autonomy to grieve based on your own values and lived experience.

• Remain accountable — especially after agreeing to represent you.

When a union discourages a member from grieving without basis, or fails to inform the member of their legal rights, it’s more than a missed opportunity — it may be a breach of their duty of fair representation.

What You Should Do if the Union Withdraws Support or Refuses to File

1. Get Written Reasons — Ask for the decision in writing.

2. File the Grievance Yourself — Use the departmental form or Treasury Board template.

3. Track Timelines — Most grievances must be filed within 25–40 days of the event or decision.

4. Document Everything — Emails, advice received, and your timeline.

File a Duty of Fair Representation (DFR) Complaint if Needed

If your union:

• Acted arbitrarily

• Discriminated against you

• Acted in bad faith

...then you can file a DFR complaint with the FPSLREB.

FPSLRA, Section 187:
The union must not act in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith in representing any of its members.

Summary Takeaways

• The union cannot block you from filing a grievance if it affects you personally.

• You can grieve under the CA — as long as it is an individual grievance.

• You don’t need union support for human rights-related or employment terms grievances.

• Only group/policy grievances require union sponsorship.

• If the union abandons your grievance, you can still fight back — and win.

References

• Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act
  https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/p-33.3

• PIPSC RE Collective Agreement
  https://pipsc.ca/groups/re/re-collective-agreement

• Grievance Forms (Treasury Board)
  https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/collective-agreements/grievance.html

• Filing a DFR Complaint (FPSLREB)
  https://www.fpslreb-crtespf.gc.ca/en/services/duty-of-fair-representation.html

Appendix: Comments from the members whose grievances where withdrawn by PIPSC against their wishes and who were told they cannot grieve without the Union

Member X:

In their withdrawal confirmation letter, PIPSC explicitly states:

"Since this grievance relates to the interpretation or application of the Collective Agreement, you are not entitled to proceed with this grievance without the authorization and representation of PIPSC."

This is noteworthy, as it presents an inherent contradiction: on one hand, they assert that I am barred from pursuing the grievance without their authorization; on the other, they have chosen to withhold that authorization and representation.

In effect, this position simultaneously denies me the ability to proceed independently while also refusing to act on my behalf — effectively foreclosing any avenue for redress.

Member Y:

The same situation occurred in my case—the exact statement was used. I’m struggling to understand what’s going on, and it’s been incredibly frustrating. We place our trust in these individuals to support us, yet they’ve turned away at a time when we need them most.

Member Z:

I tried to find out more details from Union. See PIPSC reply below. Vague as can be.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: XXX@pipsc.ca
Date: XXXXX
Subject: Fwd: Follow-up – Case - C-XXXXX / Request for Reconsideration
To: XXXXX

Hi XXXX,

I am in receipt of your emails below as acting general counsel. Please note that the letter sent to you on XXXX concludes the reconsideration process and speaks for itself. We have taken note of your DFR complaint and you can follow up directly with the FPSLREB and their website for more information on this process.

Best,

XXXX

Legal Counsel / Conseillère juridique

The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC)

---------- Forwarded message ---------

Clarification on Collective Agreement Interpretation

Dear XXXX,

In your letter, you indicated that my grievance relates to the interpretation or application of the Collective Agreement. I am having difficulty understanding how the denial of my religious exemption — which is the basis for this grievance — falls within that scope.

Could you please clarify, in my specific case, which aspect(s) you believe are related to the interpretation of the Collective Agreement? At present, I do not see a clear connection and would appreciate your perspective.

Thank you, XXXX

On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 11:10 AM Jacob Beaulieu <jacob.niceplace@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear XXXX

Further to my earlier message, I wish to address a point in your withdrawal confirmation letter that raises serious procedural concerns.

You state:

“Since this grievance relates to the interpretation or application of the Collective Agreement, you are not entitled to proceed with this grievance without the authorization and representation of PIPSC.”

This position is internally contradictory. On one hand, you assert that I cannot advance the grievance without PIPSC’s authorization. On the other, you have elected to withhold that authorization and representation. The combined effect is to entirely foreclose my ability to seek redress under the collective agreement, not on the merits of the case, but solely because of the union’s refusal to act.

Such a position effectively denies me any avenue to remedy a dispute that PIPSC itself acknowledges falls within the scope of the collective agreement. In the context of my active Duty of Fair Representation complaint, this raises serious concerns about procedural fairness and the union’s statutory obligations under the PSLRA.

I would appreciate clarification on how PIPSC reconciles this stance with its duty to represent members without discrimination, bad faith, or arbitrary conduct, particularly where the union’s own decision prevents the grievance from being heard at all.

Sincerely,
XXXX
cc: Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (FPSLREB)