Andrew Camman

A third party, Mr. Keating, was granted full participation rights in the grievance proceedings.

Having recently retained counsel, the third party requested an adjournment of several scheduled hearing dates.

Over the union's objection, the Vice-Chair granted the adjournment for the immediate hearing date and a subsequent date by agreement, but denied the request to adjourn dates scheduled for April, which had been set for some time.

The grievor, a chaplain, was suspended for insubordination after a dispute over the use of a worship centre.

She claimed she was constructively dismissed and refused to return to work, alleging a poisoned work environment.

The employer continued to pay her for several months, repeatedly requesting that she return to work or request a leave of absence.

When she failed to do so, the employer declared she had abandoned her position under section 20 of the Public Service Act.

The Public Service Grievance Board allowed the employer's preliminary motion and dismissed the grievance, finding the grievor was absent without official leave for more than two weeks without reasonable justification.

The union applied for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration under section 43 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A termination application was also pending.

At the hearing, the employer offered to sign the union's proposed collective agreement and moved to dismiss the first contract application.

The union resisted, arguing the employer's offer was a tactical move to allow the termination application to proceed.

The majority of the Board dismissed the employer's motion, finding that the statutory preconditions for a first contract application were met and that the issue of whether collective bargaining had been unsuccessful required a full evidentiary hearing.

A dissenting Board member would have dismissed the application, finding that the employer's acceptance of the union's offer created a binding contract.

During a hearing for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint, a dispute arose over a question posed during cross-examination.

Union counsel asked a witness, the employer's housekeeping supervisor, whether she went on vacation with the owner of the nursing home.

Employer counsel objected on the grounds of witness privacy.

The Board ruled that the question was permissible to test the credibility of the witness's evidence, as both the owner and the supervisor had testified they went their separate ways and did not discuss the dismissed employee.

However, the Board limited the cross-examination, ruling that union counsel must accept the witness's answer and could not pursue the issue further.

The Board also denied the employer's request for an adjournment to seek judicial review, directing counsel to move to another area of cross-examination for the remainder of the day.

The complainant alleged that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to properly communicate the terms of a settlement regarding her discharge grievance.

The settlement required the complainant to present herself for work by a specific date, failing which her grievance would be withdrawn.

The complainant, who was recovering from a work-related injury and awaiting surgery, was unaware of this requirement and failed to report, resulting in the withdrawal of her grievance.

The Board found that the union failed to satisfy its evidentiary onus to show it had properly communicated the settlement terms, concluding that this failure constituted arbitrary conduct.

The complaint was allowed, and the Board remained seized of the issue of damages.