The Ontario Labour Relations Board (“OLRB” or “Board”) recently found that an employer did not collude with the Allied Construction Employees Local 1030, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (“Carpenters”) to displace the rights of the Universal Workers’ Union, Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183 (“Labourers”). Central to the issue was…
Category: Labour Relations
Privacy Rights and A Union’s Duty to Represent its Membership
Last week, a case that has significant labour relations and privacy implications was argued before the Supreme Court of Canada. At issue in Bernard v. Canada (Attorney General) is the appropriate balance between an individual’s privacy rights and a union’s right, and duty, to represent its membership. In other words, what employee personal information is…
Supreme Court of Canada to Determine Whether Charter Protects Right to Strike
The Supreme Court of Canada will decide whether the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”) guarantees the right to strike for unions and their members. Earlier this year, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal found that the Charter does not protect the right to strike. A substantial component of the Court of Appeal’s decision…
Confidentiality Provisions: Important, Effective and Enforceable
In most unionized workplaces, many grievances are settled before the parties present their evidence and before an arbitrator issues a public decision. In most instances, when a grievance is settled, the terms of that settlement are recorded in written form. The parties often agree that the settlement must be kept confidential and include a confidentiality…
Grievor’s Poor Performance in Modified Work Not Due to Disability, Employer Met its Duty to Accommodate
Arbitrator Jasbir Parmar has found that an employer met its duty to accommodate when it placed a grievor in a position that was within her physical restrictions and provided her with ample training. The fact her performance was inadequate in the position was not due to her disability, and it was appropriate for the employer…
Majority of SCC Finds Employer Exceeded its Management Rights in Implementing Random Alcohol Testing Policy
Today, a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada upheld an arbitration award which concluded that a random alcohol testing policy for use in a safety sensitive workplace was not justified. In the absence of evidence of an existing workplace alcohol use problem, it concluded that a dangerous workplace was not, on its own, reason…
Is it Appropriate to Reinstate an Employee Whose Employment Was Terminated as a Result of Sexual Harassment?
In Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada v. CEP, Loc. 3011, the Ontario Divisional Court concluded it was not. The grievor, a mail room clerk with six years seniority, tried to kiss a female cleaner. When she pushed him away, he grabbed her buttocks. The female worker reported the incident and stated that…
Employer’s Use of Video Surveillance in Fire Station Reasonable When Addressing a Serious Safety Concern
Arbitrator Sheehan has affirmed that an employer may install and operate video surveillance in a workplace where it has legitimate and serious concerns about safety issues. In this arbitration, a firefighters’ Association grieved the installation of cameras at two fire stations. It argued, among other things, that the requirement that the employees be subject to…
Sale of Assets and Hiring of Former Employees of Defunct Business not Sale of Business within LRA: OLRB
In a recent case, the Ontario Labour Relations Board (“OLRB”) helped clarify what situations will trigger the operation of the sale of business provisions of the Labour Relations Act (“Act”) particularly when a business purchases the assets and premises of an organization which is unionized. This case may provide guidance for an organization which is…
Can Hospitals Impose a Dress Code that Prohibits Large Tattoos and Excessive Body Piercings in a Unionized Environment?
Apparently not, according to Arbitrator Slotnick’s recent award in Ottawa Hospital v CUPE. This award concluded that a hospital’s dress code policy was unenforceable as it required employees to cover up large tattoos and prohibited “visible, excessive body piercings.” The hospital argued that the dress code was minimally intrusive and its goal was to improve…