Kristin Eliot

The union filed grievances on behalf of an employee alleging the employer improperly excluded him from job competitions, denied him secondments, and created a stressful working environment.

The employee had purchased a home in another city anticipating the privatization of his workplace, which ultimately did not occur, leaving him with a long daily commute.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding no violation of the collective agreement, as the appointment and assignment of employees is a management right and there was no evidence of bad faith or discrimination.

The union alleged that the employer breached the confidentiality clause of a memorandum of settlement when a bargaining unit employee, whose normal duties included processing pay cheques, processed the grievor's settlement payment.

The union argued this amounted to improper disclosure of the settlement terms.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the payment was processed under normal procedures and there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the employee's handling of the information amounted to a third-party disclosure of the confidential memorandum of settlement.

The union grieved the employer's interpretation of Article 20.4.1.5 of the collective agreement regarding displacement rights for a surplussed employee.

The employer argued that the employee could only bump into a position if they had gained the required experience within 40km of their home position.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the union, declaring that while the displacement position must be within 40km, the experience required for that position could have been obtained either within or beyond the 40km radius.