Felicity Briggs

The union grieved the employer's decision to deny sick leave pay to employees who were absent during a period of alleged illegal strike activity.

The employer had initially proposed disciplinary action but withdrew it, leaving only the issue of sick leave entitlement.

Following a hearing regarding six affected employees, the arbitrator found that only one employee was legitimately ill on the day in question and entitled to sick leave pay.

Reasons for the decision were deferred to a later date.

During negotiations, the parties signed a Memorandum of Agreement regarding strike-related activity.

The Employer withheld sick leave pay from employees it alleged were participating in an illegal strike, but later withdrew its intention to impose discipline.

The Union brought a preliminary motion arguing that the withdrawal of discipline removed the grounds for denying sick leave and sought an order for payment.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, noting the Employer still maintained the employees were not ill.

The Board also established an expedited process for litigating the individual sick leave claims, requiring will-say statements and supporting documentation.

The grievor, a store manager with 24 years of service, was discharged for violating the employer's cash handling policy regarding US currency.

During the investigation, the employer held a meeting with the grievor where he made self-incriminating statements.

The employer failed to advise the grievor of his right to union representation prior to or during this meeting, as required by article 26.3 of the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the meeting triggered the grievor's substantive right to representation, which he did not waive.

The Board declared the discharge void ab initio and ordered the grievor reinstated with compensation from the date the union raised the representation issue.