News

News

  • 11 / 09 / 18
     

    Contents of a disciplinary termination letter: How much detail is necessary?

    This interlocutory arbitration ruling dealt with a request for particulars which was filed by the union. In order to render his decision, the arbitrator had to rule as to whether there were sufficient grounds raised by the employer in its termination letter.

    +
  • 30 / 07 / 18
     

    Policy concerning the imposition of random drug testing: Employer's burden of proof

    The Irving decision is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada on the issue of random alcohol and drug-testing in the workplace. The case decided that mandatory random testing is tantamount to a violation of the right to privacy of employees.[1] This test may, however, be justified in a safety-sensitive environment where there is evidence of enhanced safety risks, such as a general problem with substance abuse in the workplace.  

    This criterion of a “general problem with substance abuse in the workplace” was recently reviewed by the Alberta Court of Appeal[2].



    [1] Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 30 v. Irving Pulp & Paper, Ltd., 2013 SCC 34, hereinafter “Irving”

    [2] Suncor Energy Inc v. Unifor Local 707A, 2017 ABCA 313, dismissal of application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, Unifor Local 707A v. Suncor Energy Inc., 2018 CanLII 53457 (SCC).

    +
  • 20 / 06 / 18
     

    Criminal convictions and connection with employment

    The arbitrator upheld the administrative dismissal of a maintenance person in a seniors’ residence providing care for independent and assisted elderly persons. The employee had pleaded guilty on a charge of drug trafficking two years prior to his hiring[1].



    [1] Syndicat des travailleuses et travailleurs des Centres d’hébergement du Grand Montréal-CSN v. Renoir, 2018 QCTA 128

    +
  • 15 / 06 / 18
     

    Installation of cameras in the workplace : Be prepared to justify special circumstances !

    In a recent matter[1], the arbitrator had to determine whether the installation of cameras to monitor production lines at a pork processing plant constituted an unreasonable work condition, thus violating section 46 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms[2].



    [1] Unifor, section locale 145 v. Aliments Prémont Inc., 2018 QCTA 99

    [2] CQLR, c.C-12

    +