Follow us on twitter
Mar 19, 2012 Print Edition:
Available exclusively to subscribers.
Not a subscriber? Click here to start your subscription today!
Having trouble logging in? Send an e-mail to Technical Support.
Industry association welcomes evidence of ‘flexible, creative and innovative’ attitudes
Guelph, Ontario (780 production and maintenance employees of a meat packing plant) and the United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 175
Various locations in Ontario (525 employees in pari-mutuel betting at Woodbine Racetrack, Mohawk Raceway and other locations) and the Canadian Auto Workers, Local 2007
Acton Vale, Quebec (150 employees making boots and rubber compounds) and the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers, Local 480
Province-wide in Ontario (10,990 employees of a food store chain) and the United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1000A
Toronto, Ontario (40 restaurant employees) and UNITE HERE, Local 75
11 locations in Quebec (162 employees of a chain of spas) and an Employees’ Association
Delta, British Columbia (roughly 30 employees) and the Canadian Iron, Steel and Industrial Workers’ Union, Local 1
Clinton and Brussels, Ontario (241 employees of a long-term care facility) and the Service Employees International Union, Local 1
Edmonton, Alberta (900 technical service, office and clerical employees) and the Civic Service Union, Local 52
Northumberland County, New Brunswick (75 municipal employees) and the Public Service Alliance of Canada Local 80035
New Annan, Prince Edward Island (550 production and maintenance employees at two potato processing plants) and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 864
The grievor had violated his last chance agreement and been terminated. The union argued that this constituted a failure to accommodate him. The arbitrator ruled that last chance agreements were bona fide occupational requirements and deserved deferrence.
The grievor was terminated for failing to lock out the equipment on which he was working. At the hearing, it became apparent that neither was there any evidence he had begun working on the machine, nor had the policy under which he was terminated been properly put in place. He was reinstated.