FAQ's Cases - Stewart McKelvey

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2Background:REASONS FOR DECISION[1] Kenneth G. Love, Chairperson: Saskatchewan Joint Board, Retail, Wholesaleand Department Store Union (the “Union”) applied to the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board(the “Board”) on June 30, 2011 alleging that Sakundiak Equipment, a Division of WGI WestmanGroup, (the “Employer) had contravened sections 11(1)(a) and (e) of The Trade Union Act,R.S.S. 1878, c.T-17 (the “Act”). The Union also applied on that same date for reinstatement ofan employee, Dusty Copeland, as well as monetary loss suffered by Mr. Copeland resultantfrom his lay off. On August 12, 2011, with leave of the Board, the Union applied for similarrelief with respect to two other employees. During the course of the hearing, the Board wasadvised that reinstatement was no longer sought for Mr. Copeland, or another employee, Mr. HaPhan, although monetary loss was continuing to be pursued with respect to all three employees.2011 CanLII 72774 (SK LRB)[2] The Union was granted interim relief with respect to this matter by a decision ofthe Board dated August 8, 2011, with respect to Mr. Copeland. The Board commenced hearingthe application with respect to all of the employees on August 23, 2011 and continued with thehearing on October 12, 2011.Facts:[3] The Employer is a farm equipment manufacturer. The Employer manufacturesvarious types of farm equipment including grain bins, grain augers and grain bin accessories atits Regina facility. It sells the equipment it manufactures through a network of dealers, who inturn sell those products to farmers for use in their farming operations.[4] Mr. Victor Holodryga, the Vice-President and General Manager of the Employerwas called to testify on behalf of the Employer. He testified that the Employer had purchasedSakundiak about two and a half years ago and he was named as Vice-President and GeneralManager. Sakundiak Equipment is a part of the WGI Westman Group which also includesBehlen Manufacturing.[5] Mr. Holodryga testified that the Employer had other manufacturing plants inManitoba, Alberta and British Columbia. He testified that of these plants, they operated with a
3unionized workforce at their plants in Airdre, Alberta, Langley, British Columbia, Brandon,Manitoba and Winnipeg, Manitoba.[6] Mr. Holodryga testified that one of his primary functions was to look after themanufacturing of the goods they manufactured in Regina. It was his responsibility to establishthe manufacturing budget based on sales projections provided to him by the marketingdepartment, to then look after the production of the goods necessary to fulfill the sales andmarketing plan, and to adjust manpower as necessary for that purpose.[7] He testified that 2010 had been a particularly wet year which resulted in slowsales of equipment during that year. He further testified that they did not achieve the saleswhich they had forecast for 2010. As a result, the company developed a winter sales incentiveprogram so as to get dealers to commit orders for the coming year so as to allow them to betterplan their production and inventory levels.2011 CanLII 72774 (SK LRB)[8] This winter sales program allowed dealers to order goods at significant discountsif orders were placed prior to February, 2011. It also provided generous financing terms fororders placed during this promotion. Based upon the success of the winter booking program,he testified that the sales projections required that the Employer increase its workforce.[9] Also during this period, the Employer made improvements to the manufacturingfacility and equipment used to manufacture the goods which were manufactured in Regina. Mr.Holodryga testified that when the business was purchased from the previous owners, thebusiness was a “family owned” business. He testified that the equipment was outdated andneeded replacement. In particular, he noted that there was a need for a paint facility. TheEmployer ultimately spent around 14 Million dollars to upgrade the production facility.[10] In March of 2011, Mr. Holodryga testified that there were good sales from thewinter booking program. The finished goods inventory was in line with projections, so, hetestified, that they began to hire additional employees to meet the sales projections for 2011. Itwas during this staffing up period that most of the employees impacted by this application werehired.
Page 1: The Labour Relations BoardSaskatche
Page 5 and 6: 5[15] In addition, there was some h
Page 7 and 8: 7Employee “D”: He was on his pr
Page 9 and 10: 9[37] The Board did not have the be
Page 11 and 12: 11[48] Shortly after Mr. Copeland b
Page 13 and 14: 13credible reason for the disciplin
Page 15 and 16: 15outlined by the Board in RWDSU v.
Page 17 and 18: 173. Order for captive audience mee
Page 19 and 20: 19for his failure to produce the wi
Page 21 and 22: 21[95] Similarly as noted in the qu
Page 23 and 24: 23[103] Also, in The Newspaper Guil
Page 25 and 26: 25rights under the Act. The Employe
Page 27 and 28: 27The determination of whether, in
Page 29 and 30: 29respect to the section of the Alb
Page 31 and 32: 31meetings, would have been within
Page 33 and 34: 33[143] In respect of the complaint
Page 35 and 36: - 2 -[2] The plaintiff, Susan Chart
Page 37 and 38: - 4 -by the time she finished there
Page 39 and 40: - 6 -[24] Testimony was received fr
Page 41 and 42: - 8 -would feel grateful for the fo
Page 43 and 44: - 10 -[49] 2. Comfortable, even tem
Page 45 and 46: - 12 -[67] Another complaint was th
Page 47 and 48: - 14 -bottom of the problem and the
Page 49 and 50: - 16 -member about something amusin
Page 51 and 52: - 18 -[111] Given that the meeting
Page 53 and 54:
- 20 -[130] Some of the plaintiff
Page 55 and 56:
- 22 -[146] The plaintiff’s expla
Page 57 and 58:
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIOBETWEENC
Page 59 and 60:
Page: 3[5] In his application, the
Page 61 and 62:
Page: 5(c) By the Employer at any t
Page 63 and 64:
Page: 7continuation, in the amount
Page 65 and 66:
Page: 9D. ANALYSIS[23] It is well-s
Page 67 and 68:
Page: 11[28] The appellant submits
Page 70 and 71:
Page: 14[37] When parties contract
Page 72 and 73:
Page: 16addressing the issue of a c
Page 74 and 75:
Page: 18application of mitigation:
Page 76 and 77:
Page: 202008 ONCA 479, 91 O.R. (3d)
Page 78 and 79:
Page: 22[56] Notably, the concern e
Page 80 and 81:
Page: 24termination without cause,
Page 82 and 83:
Page: 26[64] The costs on the appli
Page 84 and 85:
The parties agree this Board has th
Page 86 and 87:
Mr. Wallace. The evidence is that M
Page 88 and 89:
Mr. Mutter and Mr. Wallace each tes
Page 90 and 91:
Mutter spoke. He testified he was a
Page 92 and 93:
saw (or was told by the crew) Mr. K
Page 94 and 95:
and heard, as well as other factors
Page 96 and 97:
When viewed in that light, it is fa
Page 98 and 99:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COL
Page 100 and 101:
Balogun v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP P
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 2of the immediate problem that
Page 115 and 116:
Page 4- He admitted that he had pla
Page 117 and 118:
Page 626 26. The Grievor's conduct
Page 119 and 120:
Page 8he had a problem with was fro
Page 121 and 122:
Page 10supervisor. Counsel argued t
Page 123 and 124:
Page 12hope to gain a financial ben
Page 125 and 126:
Page 1483 83. McKinley is an import
Page 127 and 128:
Page 16(iv)Has the employer attempt
Page 129 and 130:
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO___
Page 131 and 132:
[1] This is an Application under se
Page 133 and 134:
[10] Sean McKay also testified on b
Page 135 and 136:
THE LAW[19] Section 5 of the Code p
Page 137 and 138:
that ensued. There is no evidence t
Page 139 and 140:
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO___
Page 141 and 142:
[1] The applicant has filed two App
Page 143 and 144:
CHRONOLOGY OF KEY EVENTS[11] The ap
Page 145 and 146:
tasks beyond his functional limits
Page 147 and 148:
do what they can and that if someon
Page 149 and 150:
checking summaries before stating t
Page 151 and 152:
Roehl in June or to the respondent
Page 153 and 154:
Section 10 of the Code defines hara
Page 155 and 156:
was assigned duties that required h
Page 157 and 158:
-last portion of the day he levels
Page 159 and 160:
[66] I recognize that some of the c
Page 161 and 162:
was made aware on May 22/07 that hi
Page 163 and 164:
“To be honest Tony I don’t know
Page 165 and 166:
is older, or believed that the appl
Page 167 and 168:
[91] The applicant also submitted t
Page 169 and 170:
steps to address allegations of dis
Page 171 and 172:
this period lessening, in my view,
Page 173 and 174:
[109] The respondent submits that i
Page 175 and 176:
that the events of May 22 may have
Page 177:
Accordingly, I am requiring the par
show all

FAQ's Cases - Stewart McKelvey

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?