Matthew R. Wilson

The union filed a policy grievance challenging the employer's decision to contract out work at a rail maintenance facility.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing that the union improperly expanded the scope of the grievance, that the allegations were premature, and that allegations regarding layoffs and terminations could not be pursued as a policy grievance under Article 4.5 of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator held that Article 4.5 precluded the union from pursuing the layoff and termination allegations as a policy grievance because they directly affected identifiable employees who could file individual grievances.

However, the arbitrator dismissed the employer's arguments regarding the scope of the grievance and prematurity, finding that the union's allegations about 'contracting in' and the timing of the announcement were inherent to the original grievance and that the matter was ripe for adjudication.

The Union requested pre-hearing disclosure of documents relating to individual exceptions to the Employer's mandatory vaccination policy requested under the grounds of creed or disability.

The parties agreed the documents were arguably relevant but contained private and sensitive information.

The arbitrator exercised authority under section 48(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to order the Employer to disclose the requested documents, subject to strict confidentiality conditions restricting their use and dissemination.