Select 2006 Decisions

Canadian Forest Products Ltd. –and– Hospital Employees Union et. al., BCLRB No. B312/2006 (currently under appeal)
The Labour Relations Board found that the HEU did not breach the Code during political protests arising during the 2004 dispute between the HEU and the Government over Bill 37, although it found two individuals breached the Code...more

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3500 –and– Board of School Trustees of School District No. 73 (Kamloops/Thompson), October 7, 2006 (Dorsey)
This decision is a preliminary award dealing with the production of a harassment report...more

Mc Dougall –and– International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 882 –and– Superior Building Maintenance, 2006 BCHRT 502
The BC Human Rights Tribunal dismissed a complaint against the Union. The Complainant suffered a medical condition that led her to be unable to perform her job...more

Terasen Gas Inc. -and- International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 213 -and- Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union, Local 378, BCLRB No. B176/2006

This decision concerned the designation of essential services at Terasen Gas...more

Westfair Foods Ltd. –and– Loblaws Inc. –and– Kelly Douglas & Company Limited –and– 499649 B.C. Ltd. –and– United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1518, BCLRB No. B116/2006

In this decision the Labour Relations Board found that the Employer was breaching sections 6 and 68 of the Labour Relations Code by using replacement workers to do the work of employees on strike at an Extra Foods grocery store franchised by Westfair Foods...more

Westfair Foods Ltd. –and– Loblaws Inc. –and– Kelly Douglas & Company Limited –and– 499649 B.C. Ltd. –and– United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1518, BCLRB No. B88/2006

In this decision the Labour Relations Board granted the Union’s application for a declaration that Westfair Foods was an ally of a struck Extra Foods grocery store franchised by Westfair Foods...more

Trimble v. Yukon Human Rights Commission et al., 2006 YKSC 28 (April 11, 2006)

In this case, the Yukon Supreme Court quashed a decision of the Yukon Human Rights Commission in which the Commission had dismissed the petitioner’s human rights complaint...more

Prince George Airport Authority –and- Public Service Alliance of Canada (Smith grievance – objection to damages claim), dated April 3, 2006.

The Employer dismissed the grievor for allegedly selling trees located on its property without permission...more

Prince George Airport Authority –and- Public Service Alliance of Canada (Smith grievance – timeliness objection), dated April 3, 2006.

The Employer dismissed the grievor for allegedly selling its assets. The collective agreement included a time limit of 30 working days for the Union to refer the matter to arbitration after learning of the Employer’s denial of the grievance. During the 30 day time limit, the Union sought the Employer’s consent to hold the grievance in abeyance pending the release of a report that may have been relevant to the dismissal grievance. The Employer agreed. Sometime within the next two months, the Union did receive the report, however it did not request that the matter be taken out of abeyance for another several weeks. The Employer nonetheless agreed to take the matter out of abeyance.

Within 30 days of the Employer agreeing to take the grievance out of abeyance, the Union notified the Employer in a letter that it wished to refer the grievance to arbitration, and suggested arbitrators. It also asked the grievance be held in abeyance so the Union could request that the Public Service Labour Relations Board (“PSLRB”) decide whether it had jurisdiction over the grievance. The Employer had been transferred from a government employer prior to the termination, but the terms of the old public sector collective agreement remained in force until after the termination.

The Employer sought clarification from the Union, but its telephone call was not returned. The Union proceeded with its application to the PSLRB and at some point, it learned that the Employer had not been notified of the proceeding. At the Union’s request, the Employer was allowed to participate. The PSLRB eventually decided that it did not have jurisdiction. The Union immediately requested that the grievance procedure be resumed, but the Employer argued that the grievance was out of time. The parties agreed to proceed to arbitration, and to have the arbitrator decide the timeliness issue.

The provision in the Canada Labour Code for seeking relief from time limits requires both a reasonable ground for the relief, and a finding that the other party would not be unduly prejudiced by the extension in time.

The arbitrator found that no specific prejudice was alleged by the Employer. The only issue was whether the Union had reasonable grounds for any delay that took place.

The arbitrator found that the Union was not in breach of the time limits in the collective agreement prior to referring the grievance to arbitration. While the Union did not seek to remove the grievance from abeyance until several weeks after it had received the report, the critical issue is not when it received the report, but when it decided to take the matter out of abeyance. The Union was thus not in breach of the time limits in the agreement up to the date it referred the matter to arbitration. Furthermore, the Employer did not have any concerns that the Union was not proceeding with the grievance until after the referral.

As for the time spent seeking a ruling from the PSLRB, the arbitrator noted that the agreement did not require written consent to hold a grievance in abeyance after it has been referred. If the Employer was concerned about the PSLRB process, it should have either clearly objected to the Union’s course of action, or responded to the Union’s proposal of arbitrators.

Furthermore, there was no bad faith on the part of the Union. The jurisdictional issue was confusing and less than clear. The Union did not know the Employer had not been notified of the PSLRB proceeding, and when it did learn it took immediate steps to have the Employer participate. Once the PSRLB ruled that it did not have jurisdiction, the Union took immediate steps to resume the grievance procedure. There are “reasonable grounds” for the grievance to proceed, and the Employer’s objection was dismissed.

To view a copy of this decision in Adobe Acrobat format, click here.

Cunningham obo Cunningham v. School District No. 71 et al., 2006 BCHRT 142 (March 13, 2005)

In this case, the BC Human Rights Tribunal dismissed a human rights complaint against a teacher on the basis that the actions alleged did not violate the Human Rights Code and that proceeding with the complaint would not further the purposes of the Code...more

Wal-Mart Canada Corp. –and- United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1518, BCLRB No. B51/2006

This decision dealt with an application for a variance made by the Union. In a previous decision of the Board (B190/2005), a bargaining unit of employees working in the Tire and Lube Express (“TLE”) department of seven of the Employer’s locations across the province was found to be an appropriate unit...more

Wal-Mart Canada Corp. –and- United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1518, BCLRB No. B5/2006

This decision dealt with an application for certification made by the Union for employees working in the Tire and Lube Express (“TLE”) department of the Employer’s locations. The Union had previously applied for a unit of seven such TLE departments across the province (of which the Cranbrook TLE was not part of)...more

Kemess Mines Ltd. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 115, 2006 BCCA 58

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Employer’s appeal of arbitrator Munroe’s decision reinstating the grievor (released and summarized: April 2005)...more

British Columbia Teachers’ Federation –And- Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia, Board of School Trustees of School District No. 68, 2006 BCSC 131

The Union's petition for judicial review of two Information and Privacy Commissioner's decisions was successful in B.C. Supreme Court...more

Select 2007 Decisions

Select 2005 Decisions

Select 2004 Decisions

Disclaimer
The material on this website is presented for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. You should seek appropriate legal advice before taking any action based on information provided through this website.