D. Strang

The union filed grievances alleging sexual harassment by a managerial employee and sought his termination or transfer as a remedy.

The employer and the manager raised preliminary objections, arguing that the facts did not disclose a prima facie case of sexual harassment and that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to order the discipline or discharge of a managerial employee.

The Board dismissed the manager's motion, finding a prima facie case was established.

The Board also held that it possesses the remedial jurisdiction to direct the termination or transfer of a manager in exceptional cases where absolutely necessary to effect a remedy.

However, the Board concluded that termination was not absolutely necessary in this case, though alternative remedies such as transfer or removal of supervisory powers might be appropriate.

The Grievor, an Acting Manager of an ambulance service, was dismissed for cause following allegations of ongoing sexual and racial harassment, including inappropriate touching and comments directed at female subordinates.

The Grievor admitted to some inappropriate comments but denied physical contact.

The Public Service Grievance Board found the testimony of the female subordinates credible and concluded that the Grievor engaged in serious misconduct amounting to sexual assault and an abuse of power.

The Board upheld the termination, finding that progressive discipline was not appropriate given the severity of the misconduct.

A dissenting member argued that the penalty was too harsh and that the employer shared blame for tolerating a 'boys club' culture.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of construction labourers.

Following a previous Board decision determining the applicant was an affiliated bargaining agent, the applicant requested to amend its proposed bargaining unit to exclude the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector under section 144(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer and an intervener union opposed the amendment, arguing the applicant could not seek certification outside the ICI sector if it was barred within it.

The Board held that section 144(3) does not restrict the applicant from seeking a non-ICI unit, finding the amended unit appropriate.

The Board also declined the intervener's request to extend the terminal date, finding no prejudice or necessity, and authorized a Board Officer to inquire into the employee lists.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent, Joe Franze Concrete Ltd., and A.J. Concrete Ltd. constituted one employer.

The Board found that while the two companies were engaged in similar concrete work, A.J.C.'s business activity was negligible and posed no real threat to the union's bargaining rights.

Furthermore, granting the application would impose union representation on J.F.C.'s employees against their unexpressed wishes.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to treat the companies as one employer and dismissed the application.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of construction employees.

The union requested a unit encompassing all trades in the respondent's employ, including those outside its designated employee bargaining agency.

The Board found such a unit inappropriate as it would disrupt the provincial bargaining scheme, restricting the unit to construction labourers.

The Board also declined to expressly include specific classifications like cement finishers in the unit description, though it added a clarity note confirming their inclusion.

Certificates were issued for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector and for all other sectors in the relevant geographic area.