Category Archives: Decisions

UNJUST DISMISSAL – SECTION 240 OF THE CANADA LABOUR CODE

The decision found that the dismissal of a band employee for “restructuring” to constitute unjust dismissal. There was little evidence of actual “restructuring.” The dismissed employee was entitled to “wage loss” for the brief period of unemployment. Continue reading

Posted in Decisions | Leave a comment

TWU V. TELUS – limits to accommodation of chronically absent employee

The decision upholds the dismissal of an employee with excessive absenteeism, suffering from episodes of major depression and chronic low-grade depression, together with a multitude of other physical and mental conditions not known to the employer. The decision deals with limits to accommodation. Continue reading

Posted in Decisions | Leave a comment

DECISION IN WU V. RBC UPHELD IN FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

The respondent’s misconduct was serious, premeditated, deliberate and occurred over a long period of time. As he said, it was not a “momentary and emotional aberration”. He noted that the respondent had a discipline free record and was a “good and dedicated employee”, but a short-term employee. He added that the respondent was not singled out for any special or harsh treatment. He also found that the respondent refused to take responsibility for her actions, instead blaming the appellant for allowing her to commit the violations of the Bank Code of Conduct. Accordingly, he ruled that the penalty imposed by the employer was not excessive. Continue reading

Posted in Decisions | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Decision – Independent Medical Report Ordered

However, an arbitration is an adversarial process, based on the “assumption that truth is best discerned through this sort of evidentiary contest” (Canada Post, § 8). The Union has put the Grievor’s mental condition in issue by giving notice that it intends to call Dr. Mallavarapu and introduce his report, based on his examination of the Grievor. That evidence and the report will also intrude on the Grievor’s privacy. I recognize that Telus, as argued by the Union, kept comprehensive medical records with respect to the Grievor during her employment, including through its absenteeism management program, and it knew about her medical conditions. All the same, the IME requested may be necessary so that counsel can be properly instructed for the cross-examination of the Union’s experts, and for the preparation of the expert testimony it may decide to lead. I agree with Telus that I likely will be asked at the end of hearing to choose between the opinions of the Union’s medical experts, who have examined the Grievor, and the Employer’s expert who has not. Generally, the report from an expert, who has examined an individual, will carry more weight than the report from on who has not. In my view, deficiencies in the medical evidence may not, as argued by the Union, be adequately addressed in cross-examination. As noted in Canada Post, quoted above: “If one side has access to experts who have examined the grievor and the other side does not, an unfairness manifests itself in an inability to adequately understand the medical evidence as it relates to the individual, an inability to adequately cross examine on critical points and an inability to call contradictory evidence.” Thus, if I deny the Employer’s application, the evidence of the Union may well go untested because of the inability to the employer to effectively cross-examine or to call contradictory evidence. I am not satisfied, the circumstances, that directing the Employer to seek further or additional information from the Union’s expert, as suggested in Overwaitea Foods, satisfies the fair hearing requirements. The fact is that the Union has its own expert. This places the employer at a disadvantage, which is prejudicial to its right to a full and fair hearing. Continue reading

Posted in Arbitration Awards and Decision, Decisions, Employment Law, Human Rights, Labour Law | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment