New Brunswick Labour and Employer Board decision in mandatory retirement case
August 08, 2023
In Robson v University of New Brunswick Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3339, the complainant, Robson, was required to retire from her position at the University of New Brunswick (the “University”) at age 65, due to a mandatory retirement provision in the Collective Agreement between the University and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3339 (the “Union”). Notably, Robson’s pension plan (the New Brunswick Public Service Pension Plan) did not require retirement at age 65.
Robson requested a waiver to continue working beyond age 65, which was denied by the University. Robson next requested that the Union file a grievance on her behalf, but the Union declined to do so. In response, Robson brought a complaint to the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission, who subsequently referred it to the New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board (the “Board”) for a hearing.
The Union and the University argued that the mandatory retirement provision was permitted under section 4(6)(a) of New Brunswick’s Human Rights Act (the “Act”), which allows an exception for age-based discrimination when it occurs due to “the terms or conditions of any bona fide retirement or pension plan.” The Board concluded that the provisions of the Collective Agreement addressing mandatory retirement constituted a “bona fide retirement plan” for the purposes of the Act, which meant that the exception applied.
In its decision the Board held that a hearing will be scheduled to determine whether s.4(6)(a) of the Act violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Click on more information to read the full decision:
