Susan L. Stewart

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an order vacating a previous interim relief order that had directed the employer to refrain from proceeding with its Personnel Security Checks Initiative.

The Board ordered that the Personnel Screening Checks Policy and Operational Guidelines could be implemented by the employer as of January 1, 2006.

The Board remained seized of issues regarding specific phases of the guidelines and redeployment processes, and directed the parties to meet to review the operation of the policy by September 30, 2006.

The union filed a policy grievance concerning the interpretation of the collective agreement regarding relocation expenses.

The union argued that employees who relocate their residences due to a change in an operation's headquarters beyond a 40-kilometer radius are entitled to relocation expenses without having to meet the 125-kilometer residential move requirement set out in the employer's Relocation Expenses Directive.

The employer maintained that the directive's 125-kilometer requirement applied.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement clearly incorporated the employer's relocation policy, which included the 125-kilometer distance requirement for reimbursement of residential moving expenses.

The union brought an application for interim relief to prohibit the employer from implementing a new employee security checks process, which included police and credit checks, pending the resolution of grievances on the merits.

The employer argued the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to issue such an order.

The Board rejected the employer's jurisdictional argument, finding it had authority based on established jurisprudence.

Applying the test for interim relief, the Board found the union had established an arguable case that the policy violated the collective agreement, privacy legislation, and the Charter.

The Board concluded the balance of convenience favoured the union, as the potential harm to employees' privacy interests and the consequences of refusing consent or failing a check could not be adequately remedied retroactively.

The application for interim relief was granted.

The Union requested interim relief to preclude the Employer from imposing financial consequences, such as suspension or dismissal, on the grievors for failing to meet case closing targets.

The Board applied the two-fold test for interim relief, considering the existence of an arguable case and the balance of potential harm.

The Board found that while the prospect of discipline was troubling to the grievors, the Employer had a fundamental interest in setting and enforcing standards.

Concluding that the balance of potential harm favoured the Employer, the Board denied the request for interim relief.

The union sought interim relief to prevent the employer from suspending or discharging the grievors until their grievances regarding a directive with a threat of discipline were decided.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to grant interim relief as it was not a 'procedural matter' under s. 48(12)(i) of the Labour Relations Act, and that the motion was premature because no discipline had yet been imposed.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the threat of discipline was specifically raised in the grievances, giving the Board jurisdiction to consider interim relief, and that grieving a threat of discipline before it is carried out is not premature.