Jodi S. Gallagher

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance after the grievor repeatedly failed to cooperate with the union or comply with the Grievance Settlement Board's orders to provide particulars.

The grievor had chosen to pursue a concurrent claim before the Human Rights Tribunal and refused to participate in the grievance process until the human rights claim concluded.

The Board granted the motion and dismissed the grievance, holding that the employer is entitled to have matters resolved in a timely manner and the process cannot be held in abeyance indefinitely due to the grievor's refusal to comply with orders.

The Union raised a preliminary objection arguing that the grievor's termination was void ab initio because the Employer violated the union representation clause (Article 26.3) of the collective agreement.

A shift leader had confronted the grievor about a co-worker's harassment allegations without offering union representation.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the shift leader was acting as a representative of management and the meeting triggered Article 26.3.

However, because the termination was also based on subsequent alleged misconduct not discussed at that meeting, the termination was not void ab initio.

The Employer was merely precluded from relying on the allegations discussed at the improper meeting.