R. Graham Williamson

Following an application for judicial review, the respondent unions sought costs.

The applicant opposed the costs request, citing serious financial hardship.

The Divisional Court held that costs should follow the event, noting that the unions were required to participate fully due to the applicant's allegations of misconduct.

The court awarded costs of $3,500 to the Teamsters and $5,000 to UA Local 787.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation under s. 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union had withdrawn his grievance from arbitration due to his antagonistic and uncooperative conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was entirely reasonable and that there was no denial of procedural fairness.

The grievor, a Customer Service Representative with physical restrictions due to workplace injuries, was placed on modified duties.

The Employer subsequently refused to schedule her for Sunday and premium shifts, claiming she could not perform the essential cash and stock functions required on those days.

Later, the Employer concluded it could no longer accommodate her and pursued a Labour Market Re-entry plan.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer failed to accommodate the grievor to the point of undue hardship.

The Employer improperly relied on a blanket rule for Sunday scheduling and failed to adequately assess whether the grievor's tasks could be bundled or whether she could be placed in another position.

The Board ordered the Employer to reinstate the grievor and conduct a proper assessment of accommodation options.

At the scheduled hearing, the parties agreed to adjourn the matters.

The Board rescheduled the hearing for July 19 and 20, 2001, on consent of the parties.