Rob Bayne

The applicant alleged that her employment was terminated in a discriminatory manner based on her family and marital status, following an investigation into a scheme to defraud the respondent through its damaged goods sales program.

The respondent terminated the applicant and several of her family members, concluding they had participated in the scheme.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's relationship with her father-in-law and brothers-in-law did not fall within the Code's definition of family status.

Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted the respondent's non-discriminatory explanation that the applicant was terminated because it reasonably believed she had knowingly benefited from stolen merchandise and had been untruthful during the investigation, rather than because of her marital relationship with her husband.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, resulting in four votes in favour and six against, with three segregated ballots.

One segregated ballot belonged to an interested party whose employment status was disputed.

A hearing was scheduled to hear her representations, but she failed to attend.

The Board denied the union's request for an adjournment, ruled that the interested party's ballot would not be counted, and dismissed the application for certification as the union could not mathematically achieve the required majority even if the remaining segregated ballots were counted in its favour.