Margo MacKinnon

The applicant sought a review of an order to pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

The issue was whether the employee was terminated or quit his employment after a workplace fight involving his brother.

The Board found that the employee had abandoned his job by leaving work after the fight and not returning for several days.

The Board concluded that the employee quit his employment and rescinded the order to pay.

The applicant, a director of a now-defunct bakery, applied for a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

During the hearing, the applicant reached settlements with three of the claimants, including a $350 payment to one claimant.

The Board heard evidence regarding a fourth claimant and reserved its decision.

The hearing regarding the fifth claimant, who was absent, was adjourned to a later date.

The applicant, a director of a now-defunct bakery, applied for a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

During the hearing, the applicant reached a settlement with three of the claimants, agreeing to pay one claimant $350.00 and entering into written minutes of settlement with two others.

The Board heard evidence regarding a fourth claimant and reserved its decision, while adjourning the hearing for a fifth claimant who was not present.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, suffered multiple workplace injuries resulting in intermittent absences.

The union grieved the employer's decision to cease full salary continuation under Article 41.2 of the collective agreement, arguing that each recurrence of an injury constituted a new claim triggering a fresh 65-day entitlement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, following a previous arbitration decision which held that intermittent absences from the same originating injury do not trigger a new entitlement period, as the collective agreement specifically ties intermittent absences to the first absence of the originating claim.

The grievors, Assessment Field Officers, alleged they were improperly denied acting pay while performing the duties of Neighborhood Functional Assessors during a period of major property reassessment.

The union argued the grievors performed the same work as the higher-rated assessors.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that while there was significant overlap in duties, the grievors did not perform all the core duties of the higher position, such as independent commercial/industrial valuations and defending assessments before the Assessment Review Board.

The applicant, a worker member of the joint health and safety committee, appealed an inspector's decision not to issue an order against the employer.

The applicant alleged the employer violated the Occupational Health and Safety Act by testing a new bulk emulsive explosive without consulting the committee or allowing a designated member to be present.

The Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the testing was conducted solely to determine the product's efficiency, not for health and safety purposes, and therefore the statutory right to be present did not apply.

The employer appealed an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer regarding termination pay for a gas pipeline locator.

The employee was terminated after an argument with the company president over a suspension related to the employee's refusal to locate pipelines based on allegedly inaccurate blueprints.

The Board found that the termination was partly due to the employee exercising his rights under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to refuse unsafe work, and that the employer failed to prove willful misconduct.

The employer's appeal was dismissed and the employee was found entitled to termination pay.

At the hearing for this grievance, the union stated it had no dispute with the employer's actions, and the parties agreed there was no difference between them.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that under section 7(3) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, there must be a difference between the parties for the Board to have jurisdiction.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor, a temporary Data Entry Clerk, alleged that the Employer acted in bad faith by denying her a Data Processing Clerk position in a job competition.

The Union argued that the keying test was designed to favour another candidate by using a strictly numeric test on a specific keyboard system.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer's decisions regarding the test design were reasonable and based on legitimate business needs, as the department was phasing out older systems and the majority of the work was numeric.

The Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of bad faith or favouritism, noting the grievor performed well in the interview portion but fell short in the overall scoring.

The grievance was dismissed.