Todd C. Andres

A unionized health authority employee was suspended for attending work under the influence of alcohol.

After disclosing her alcohol addiction and refusing a last-chance abstinence agreement, the employer terminated her employment; her union grieved and she was reinstated on similar terms, then terminated again for allegedly breaching those terms.

The employee filed a human rights complaint alleging failure to accommodate her disability, and a human rights adjudicator assumed jurisdiction and found discrimination.

The majority held that Manitoba's mandatory dispute resolution clause in The Labour Relations Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the labour arbitrator over all disputes arising from the collective agreement, and that The Human Rights Code does not clearly express legislative intent to grant concurrent jurisdiction to the human rights adjudicator over such disputes.

The appeal was allowed and the reviewing judge's order setting aside the adjudicator's decision was reinstated.

Both the applicant and the respondent sought reconsideration of a decision finding that the respondent discriminated against the applicant based on his place of origin when it terminated his employment.

The applicant sought to introduce new evidence and claim higher damages, while the respondent argued the adjudicator applied the incorrect legal test, breached procedural fairness, and exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests, finding neither party established the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The appellant employer appealed a decision setting aside an arbitrator's award.

The arbitrator had found that while the employer breached the collective agreement regarding vacation entitlements, the respondent union was estopped from grieving the practice due to its long-standing acquiescence.

The Court of Appeal held the arbitrator's application of estoppel was reviewable on a standard of correctness and set it aside.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that labour arbitrators are not bound to apply equitable doctrines exactly as courts do, and their application of such doctrines is reviewable on a standard of reasonableness.

The arbitrator's decision to impose an estoppel was reasonable given the labour relations context.