Winston G. Mattis

The grievors, Labour Relations Officers, alleged they were wrongly denied promotions due to systemic discrimination and racial bias.

At the outset of the hearing, the employer conceded that the Public Service Grievance Board has jurisdiction to hear grievances alleging systemic discrimination and to order appropriate remedies.

The Vice-Chair declared that the Board has such jurisdiction and issued orders for the disclosure of the competition file and other documents to be relied upon at the hearing.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the summary judgment and dismissing the motion for summary judgment, because an argument regarding a statutory bar under the Employment Standards Act was neither pleaded nor argued before the motions judge.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his application to vary support.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in rejecting the appellant's medical evidence, which indicated he was unable to work full-time.

Given the conflicting evidence regarding the appellant's ability to work, the motion judge should have ordered the trial of an issue.

The appeal was allowed, the order set aside, and the trial of an issue ordered.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union, alleging it failed to properly represent him regarding threats from students and systemic discrimination by the school administration.

The applicant also raised a constitutional question, arguing the Board's standard for assessing union liability under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act was too low and violated the Charter.

The Board rejected the constitutional challenge, finding its test for arbitrariness was appropriate.

While the Board expressed concern over the union's initial handling of the applicant's complaints and its misunderstanding of its representational role, it ultimately dismissed the application.

The Board found the union did not violate section 74, as the immediate student issues had been resolved by the administration before the union could intervene, and the applicant had waited too long to report the alleged systemic discrimination incidents.

The applicant sought review of an employment standards officer's decision not to issue an order for termination pay.

The applicant had travelled to India and failed to return to work on the date required by the employer, claiming she was hospitalized and unable to travel.

The Board found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and that she had booked her return flight for a date after she was required to be at work, demonstrating a reckless disregard for the employer's direction.

The Board concluded the applicant's actions constituted wilful misconduct and dismissed the application for review.

The applicant filed a reprisal complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

At the hearing, the applicant sought to amend the application to include allegations regarding his subsequent discharge from employment and requested that the matter be consolidated with a related unfair labour practice complaint filed by a union.

The responding parties consented to the amendment without prejudice to their preliminary objections.

The Board granted the amendment, set a schedule for filing particulars, and directed that the matter be listed for a hearing together with the related complaint to determine procedural and preliminary issues.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay.

The responding employee requested an adjournment because she would be out of the country.

The applicant took no position and the Ministry of Labour consented.

The Board granted the adjournment and referred the matter to the Registrar to fix a new hearing date and assign a Labour Relations Officer to attempt a settlement.