The Association successfully argued that selecting the Grievors for termination based on their status as Temporary Foreign Workers ("TFWs") was discrimination on the basis of their “place of origin”.
The arbitration panel found a failure to provide notice as required by the collective agreement is a breach of the union’s representation rights. The panel also accepted there may be circumstances in which estoppel can ground a remedy for monetary benefits.
The Alberta Labour Relations Board dismissed an Unfair Labour Practice Complaint filed by AUFA alleging that CUPE unfairly influenced a group of employees by suggesting they vote to be voluntarily represented by CUPE.
Due to the reasonableness standard of review the Court of Queen’s bench dismissed this judicial review. The original arbitration had dismissed CEWA’s grievance that ATCO had improperly demanded that two employees submit to drug and alcohol testing after a work place incident.
The Court of Queen’s Bench upheld an earlier arbitration decision reinstating a paramedic after finding there was a reasonable likelihood that he did not remember striking a patient.
The arbitrator found that the collective agreement between EPA and EPS does not contain a restriction that prevents an accommodated employee from applying for another position within EPS. This decision was recently upheld in a Judicial Review.
The arbitrator in this case found that the employer had failed in its duty to accommodate a pharmacy technician whose medical condition prevented him from working night shifts.
Nadine Swist v Alberta Labour Relations Board & Edmonton Police Association (3 November 2017), Edmonton 1603 14073 (Alta QB) - Unreported
Timelines prescribed by the Alberta Labour Relations Code regarding the filing and service of judicial review applications are mandatory and must be adhered to, failing which the application for judicial review must be struck.
In this certification application, the Board included employees and supervisors in the bargaining unit across multiple sites at this community based special needs facility.
Restrictions on an EPS employee’s ability to transfer or apply for a promotion were not removed by EPS once the employee was cleared in a misconduct investigation. The Court of Appeal overturned an earlier finding that the employee continued to present a testamentary risk and removed the restrictions.
The Court of Appeal upheld an earlier decision that found while requiring pension eligible employees on long term disability to retire constituted a prima facie case of discrimination the plan was a bona fide employee insurance plan and therefore unaffected by the Alberta Human Rights Act.
Even in cases where an applicant has potentially received faulty legal advice, it is incumbent upon him to bring his complaint against his union before the Alberta Labour Relations Board in a timely manner, or risk the application being dismissed for unreasonable delay.
This case reflects the fact that professional regulatory colleges are not granted “carte blanche” in their oversight of members and must govern in accordance with their statutory grant of authority. Additionally, the Court in this case confirmed that when the employment status of a union’s members is at issue and the union’s involvement is an effective way to bring the issue before the court, a union has standing to litigate on behalf of its members.
This case is instrumental in confirming the necessity of proper pleadings when allegations of breach of trust and defamation are at issue, and that plaintiffs may not refuse to provide specifics and hope to then make their case during questioning.
Based primarily on the educational requirement and the unsupervised care provided by Therapy Assistants, this determination hearing ruled that Therapy Assistants perform paramedical work that is technical enough to fall within the scope of the HSAA PPT bargaining unit.
The Court of Appeal ordered that an Interim Injunction Order granted earlier to KOS Oilfield against Mitchell be vacated. The terms included prohibition of employment with her new employer, requiring return of confidential information, and disclosure of all contacts made by her with customers and former customers of the plaintiff. The Court found that the terms of the Order were overly broad and sweeping and KOS Oilfield had not managed to make even a prima facie case that Mitchell was likely to be in breach of whatever duties she might be found to have owed her former employer.