Ross Wells

The applicant, a university faculty member alleging sex discrimination in her promotion process, sought production of documents relating to a male colleague who was promoted around the same time.

The respondent and intervenors opposed production, arguing the documents were irrelevant and protected by confidentiality privilege.

The Tribunal ordered production of the male colleague's curriculum vitae, salary information, redacted reference letters, and redacted transmittal letter, finding them relevant as comparator evidence and not privileged under the Wigmore test.

Student course evaluations were not ordered produced as the applicant's own evaluations were not in evidence.

The complainant, a banquet waitress discharged for theft, alleged that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union had referred her grievance to expedited arbitration one day late, leading to a jurisdictional objection by the employer.

The union subsequently withdrew the expedited referral to pursue a three-person arbitration board, but the Divisional Court ultimately prohibited the board from hearing the grievance.

The complainant also rejected a settlement offer against the union's advice.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union's strategic decisions, including its interpretation of time limits and its advice to accept the settlement, were reasonable and not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The employer applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of the employment status of eleven individuals, arguing they should be excluded from the bargaining unit under section 1(3)(b) because they exercised managerial functions or were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

The Board reviewed the duties and responsibilities of each individual, including benefits clerks, human resources assistants, payroll clerks, and occupational health nurses.

The Board concluded that only the Benefits Clerk was employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations and should be excluded.

The remaining ten individuals were found to be employees under the Act and properly included in the bargaining unit.

The appellant union refused to proceed with a part-time employee's dismissal grievance, arguing part-time employees had no grievance rights under the collective agreement.

The Canada Labour Relations Board found the union breached its statutory duty of fair representation and ordered the grievance to proceed to arbitration at the union's expense.

The union sought judicial review, alleging the Board exceeded its jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Board's decision was protected by a privative clause and its interpretation of its statutory powers was not patently unreasonable, thus no jurisdictional error occurred.

The appeal was quashed.