2 total
Policy grievance regarding layoffs from contracting out precluded where individual employees could grieve; other preliminary objections dismissed.
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.
Hearing adjourned to allow Grievor to obtain an independent medical examination report.
The Union brought a preliminary motion to adjourn the grievance arbitration hearing to permit the Grievor to obtain an independent medical examination (IME) report from a psychiatrist or psychologist.
The Employer sought production of documents from the Crown and Police relating to the Grievor's alleged harassment of certain individuals.
The Arbitrator granted the adjournment, set a timeline for the IME report and related medical records, and directed the Union and Grievor to take reasonable steps to facilitate the production of the requested Crown and Police materials.
The Union waived its right to seek back wages for the period of the adjournment.
