Canadian Labour Reporter

September 9, 2019

Canadian Labour Reporter is the trusted source of information for labour relations professionals. Published weekly, it features news, details on collective agreements and arbitration summaries to help you stay on top of the changing landscape.

Issue link: https://digital.hrreporter.com/i/1162719

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 7 of 7

8 Canadian HR Reporter, a HAB Press business 2019 September 9, 2019 ARBITRATION AWARDS the city argued that under the new process, meetings with Bridges were not classified as "investiga- tive" which meant that attendance was not to be accompanied by union representation. (Union representatives were paid by the city, which then sent an invoice to the union for the wages.) The union, the Amalgamat- ed Transit Union (ATU), Local 615, grieved the city's decision on May 12, 2016. During the arbitration hear- ing, a 2009 letter was produced that clarified who paid for certain meetings. "Investigative meet- ings, disciplinary interview meet- ings, grievance and/or arbitration meetings: Saskatoon Transit will pay the employee and one union representative at applicable rates to attend scheduled meetings with transit management," said the let- ter, written by branch manager Mitch Riabko. Since then, said the union, the city has paid for all meetings that had union representation. Not every meeting included a union representative, just the con- tentious ones, said ATU. When the Bridges contract was started, problems between the union and the employer arose, as the process was being ironed out. ATU eventually recom- mended that all meetings with Bridges officials included union representation. However, management did not consider the meetings "investi- gative" and instead saw them as fact-finding efforts. The employ- er would only pay for attendance if the employer requested union representation, said Mike Moel- lenbeck, operations manager. "It is not a requirement that a union rep be present. This is the same process as in the past with a referral to DAP. Therefore, this is not union business/city paid," said a letter sent to the union on May 2, 2016. The ATU grieved the response on May 12. Arbitrator Sheila Denysiuk (backed by fellow board member Laura Sommervill but dissented by Carolyn Jones) dismissed the grievance. "We are satisfied that the purpose of DAP meetings is fact-finding, not investigative. Employees are referred to DAP in order to validate absences, not to investigate suspected wrong- doing. Accordingly, although the employer has allowed represent- atives to attend such meetings in the past, and should continue to do so in the future, there is no corresponding requirement to pay for representation," said Denysiuk. The employer's actions in the past lead to the union filing a grievance, said Denysiuk. "We agree with the union that the employer haphazard- ly invoiced the union for DAP meetings attended by the union after Bridges was retained. The employer's approach was con- fusing. Some leaves were grant- ed, while others were refused or questioned. We have concluded that the evidence of past prac- tice isn't sufficient to support the union's contention that the parties viewed DAP meetings as 'investi- gative' interviews." Reference: The City of Saskatoon and Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 615. Sheila Denysiuk — arbitrator. Tyson Bull, Reche McKeague for the employer. Gary Bainbridge for the employee. Aug. 21, 2019. required for the residents, some of whom stayed awake during the night and required special care. On Nov. 15, 2016, program manager Surinder Bedi, who oversaw the KINDD unit, arrived at the centre around 2:40 a.m. She couldn't sleep that night, so she went in to catch up on paperwork. Normally, Bedi worked from 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. When she arrived, she was speaking with a health-care aide when they heard screaming com- ing from a patient's room, identi- fied as "CP." When the two went into his room, "he continued to make noises; he did not stop," said Bedi, so she decided he needed further assessment. Bedi walked to the lounge area to look for more staff on duty and saw the nurse sitting in a chair with her legs resting on another chair. The nurse's eyes were closed, and some clothing was covering her chest area, testified Bedi. Bedi stood there for 20 to 25 seconds and observed the nurse sleeping. She then tapped her shoulder, and the nurse stood up. Bedi asked the nurse if she was on a break and the nurse replied: "No, I just dozed off." But according to the nurse, she said during her testimony: "How can you talk about sleeping? No- body sleeps here. We don't sleep." (Another staff member who was also observed to be sleeping during the same time was termi- nated and later reinstated after an arbitration hearing.) Bedi and the nurse then dealt with the screaming patient. Bedi then went to her office and took handwritten notes about the sleeping incident, which were lat- er typed up by the HR department and signed. At 7 a.m., Bedi told Roxanne Roberts, director of nursing, what happened. The nurse was dis- missed for sleeping on the job the following day. The Alberta Union of Provin- cial Employees (AUPE), Local 048 Chapter 017, grieved the termina- tion and argued that Bedi's testi- mony was unreliable because it changed during various hearings. As well, the other employee who was fired was not found to be sleeping on duty, said the union, and her dismissal was overturned due to Bedi's inconsistent testi- mony. Arbitrator John Moreau dis- agreed and upheld the firing. "Although there are a few ex- amples where Bedi contradicted herself, they are not critical to the main issue of whether the grievor was observed sleeping on the job for some 25 seconds before Bedi said she touched the grievor on the shoulder and woke her up." And Bedi's account was given more weight by the arbitrator. "I am of the view, after a care- ful review of the testimony of the grievor and Bedi, which is central to this case, that the grievor did not provide an honest account of what occurred when Bedi walked on to the KINDD unit at 3 a.m. in the morning on Nov. 15, 2016. She testified that she saw the grievor fast asleep, and then waited for some 25 seconds be- fore touching her shoulder and waking her up. There is no evi- dence that the Bedi held a grudge or was otherwise out to target the grievor. Bedi went to work early because she wanted to do some paperwork. But for the scream- ing of patient CP, she may have never even entered the lounge area looking for the night nursing staff." Reference: The Brenda Strafford Foundation (Clifton Manor) and Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, Local 048 Chapter 017. John Moreau — arbitrator. Rebecca Silverberg for the employer. Ralf Kuntzemann for the employee. May 21, 2019. 2019 CarswellAlta 974 Supervisor's testimony inconsistent, unreliable: AUPE < Nurse terminated pg. 1 < Saskatoon transit pg. 1 Employer considered meetings fact-finding, not investigative "The employer haphazardly invoiced the union for DAP meetings."

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of Canadian Labour Reporter - September 9, 2019