W. Kaplan

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to make reasonable efforts to secure employment for bargaining unit employees affected by the closure of several facilities and the transfer of their functions to broader public sector agencies, as required by Appendix 9 of the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's efforts, which consisted merely of holding an information day, writing letters, and making inquiries without any negotiation or financial incentives, were de minimis and insufficient.

The Board declared that the employer breached the collective agreement and directed it to hold bi-weekly meetings with the union, negotiate placements with receiving agencies using financial incentives, and maintain detailed records of surplusing activities.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to make reasonable efforts to secure employment for bargaining unit members affected by the closure of several facilities and the transfer of their functions to broader public sector agencies.

The employer argued its efforts, which included holding an information day and sending letters to receiving agencies, were sufficient.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the employer's efforts were de minimis and failed to meet the collective agreement's requirement to make reasonable efforts.

The Board directed the employer to hold meetings with the union, negotiate placements with financial incentives, and keep detailed records of surplusing activities.

In a grievance arbitration involving allegations of discrimination and sexual harassment, the union filed particulars naming two members of management.

The two individuals attended the hearing and requested third party status to defend their reputations, as the employer indicated it would not necessarily represent their interests.

The union opposed the request.

The Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board granted the individuals third party status, finding that the potential for permanent damage to their reputations and standing in the community constituted a vital, direct, and compelling interest that warranted an exception to the general rule against granting third party status in rights arbitrations.

A partial dissent would have denied third party status.