Elizabeth Kosmidis

The applicant, a Ph.D. candidate with bipolar affective disorder, alleged that the respondent university failed to accommodate his disability and discriminated against him by terminating his employment and cancelling his registration.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not an employee at the material times.

The Tribunal further held that the cancellation of his registration was due to his failure to disclose his previous academic history, a bona fide reason unrelated to his disability.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the failure to accommodate claim, finding that the applicant had not requested accommodation, already had a flexible schedule, and failed to cooperate in the accommodation process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that his employer failed to accommodate his workplace injury and discriminatorily terminated his employment.

These same issues had previously been the subject of a grievance and a six-day labour arbitration, which dismissed the grievance and found no violation of the Code.

The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Figliola, holding that s. 45.1 of the Code requires the dismissal of an application where the same issues were decided in a different proceeding, without reviewing the procedural or substantive correctness of that prior proceeding.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a probationary Quality and Risk Applications Specialist, alleged she was subjected to sex discrimination when her manager required her to complete a business plan, a task she claimed her male colleagues were not required to do.

Her employment was terminated during her probationary period due to performance issues.

The Tribunal found that the business plan requirement was a common practice at the hospital applied to all Application Specialists regardless of gender.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish that her gender was a factor in the employer's requirements or decisions.

The union filed a grievance asserting that Privacy Officers employed by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board should be included in the 'all employee' bargaining unit.

The employer argued they should be excluded under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act due to a conflict of interest arising from their duties, which involve privacy compliance, investigating privacy breaches, and advising management.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Privacy Officers do not exercise managerial functions or act in a confidential capacity regarding labour relations.

Their duties do not create a conflict of interest with being members of the bargaining unit.

The grievance was allowed, and the Privacy Officers were included in the bargaining unit.

The union filed a grievance regarding whether Privacy Officers employed by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board are members of the bargaining unit.

Following a hearing, the arbitrator issued a bottom-line decision finding that the five persons currently employed as Privacy Officers are Crown employees and are included in the bargaining unit under the collective agreement's recognition clause.

Written reasons were to follow.

The grievor was terminated for innocent absenteeism after being off work on long-term disability (LTD) since 1995 with no prospect of returning.

The union grieved the termination, arguing that the collective agreement and past practice provided employees on LTD with continued benefits, including life insurance and the accrual of vacation and attendance credits, which required 'employee' status.

The arbitrator held that while an employer generally has the right to terminate for innocent absenteeism, this right is fettered if termination deprives the employee of negotiated benefits specifically tied to their disability.

The grievance was allowed and the discharge rescinded.