Can a grievor change the nature of his grievance at this hearing by expanding the scope of and time during which he requests a remedy?

The grievor has attempted to change the nature of his grievance at this hearing by expanding the scope of, and time during which he requests a remedy. This effort violates the injunction against altering the terms of the initial grievance expressed in Burchill v. Attorney General of Canada, [1981] 1 F.C. 109: . . . 5. In our view, it was not open to the applicant, after losing at the final level of the grievance procedure the only grievance presented, either to refer a new or different grievance to adjudication or to turn the grievance so presented into a grievance complaining of disciplinary action leading to discharge within the meaning of subsection 91(1). Under that provision it is only a grievance that has been presented and dealt with under section 90 and that falls within the limits of paragraph 91(1)(a) or (b) that may be referred to adjudication. In our view the applicant having failed to set out in his grievance the complaint upon which he sought to rely before the Adjudicator, namely, that his being laid off was really a camouflaged disciplinary action, the foundation for clothing the Adjudicator with jurisdiction under subsection 91(1) was not laid. Consequently, he had no such jurisdiction. . . .