FAQ's Cases - Stewart McKelvey

More documents

Recommendations

Info

8[30] Ms. Outerbridge testified that the purpose of the meetings was to get feedbackfrom the employees which the Employer could use going forward. She testified that during themeetings her Minutes disclosed some significant issues having been discussed at these toolbox meetings.[31] The first item on her notes deals with “Organizational Structure” accompanied bya note; “Doug is to set up a meeting with the ‘Team Leaders’ and discuss the four supervisorstructure we’re moving forward with, as well as explain this decision is not and was notperformance based and that they are still go-to people for the supervisors”.[32] Another note under the heading “Communication” involves an EmployeeAssociation which her notes identified as; “will help communicate the everyday issues occurringon the front line”. Similarly under that heading are notes concerning “Conflict Resolution,Respectful Behaviour, Respecting Coffee and Lunch Breaks, Performance Evaluations, andHealth and Safety Updates”.2011 CanLII 72774 (SK LRB)[33] Under the heading “Continuous Improvement” there are notes concerning theadministration of overtime “equally without favourites”, implementation of weekly overtime signupsheets, overtime being awarded on “seniority and then by skill”. There were notesconcerning Physical Improvements, including “clocks, floor mats, more garbage cans, tools,fans, etc…” as well as comments concerning coveralls provided for employees.[34] Under the heading “Training and Development” there were notes respectingemployee product knowledge sessions, cross training of employees based on “their interest andexperience” and such items as English classes, cultural programs, etc.[35] Under the heading “Pay Scale Structure” were notes respecting a need toevaluate “current wages and quantify increases that need to or should happen”, “overhaul theexisting structure: by job description, training opportunities, dept.” and “formalizing pre-Employment testing”.[36] The final note was with respect to the Employee Newsletter which her notessuggested should be “light and family oriented”.
9[37] The Board did not have the benefit of Ms. Outerbridge’s direct testimonyconcerning these notes as they were tendered as an Exhibit at the commencement of theUnion’s case, by agreement of the parties. Ms. Outerbridge did provide some direct testimonywith respect to the meetings she attended, which testimony was subject to cross-examination byUnion counsel. It was during her cross-examination that it was discovered that she had notesfrom the meetings which she was asked to produce, which the Employer undertook to do.[38] During cross-examination of Ms. Outerbridge, she was challenged with respect tothe use of the term “permanent lay off” used in the letters to the laid off employees. Sheexplained the term was utilized because the Employer had no reasonable expectation that theemployees might be recalled to work. However, she testified that she advised all of the laid offemployees to “keep in touch in case the situation changes”.2011 CanLII 72774 (SK LRB)[39] She testified on cross examination that the “tool box’ meetings on June 24, 2011had been suggested by Mr. Lepper on June 23, 2011. She also testified that these meetingswere the first such meetings which had ever been held at Sakundiak. She testified that themeetings were “confidential” in that no employee names would be attached to any of thefeedback received by the Employer so that employees could speak freely in the meetings.[40] With respect to the “Employee Association”, she testified that this was an ideaput forward by Mr. Lepper for discussion. In the proposal, each department would nominate arepresentative. She likened the proposal to being similar to an Occupational and HealthCommittee structure, but with a smaller group of people.[41] In her cross examination, she confirmed that it was she and Mr. Riddock whodetermined which employees would be laid off and that Mr. Holodryga did not participate in thatdecision. The decision on lay offs was made only following the conference call on June 22,2011. She testified that she had no knowledge of any particular employee’s union involvement.She advised that only newly hired employees were considered for lay off. She also confirmedthe factors that were considered with respect to those employees were (a) the employee’s rateof pay, (b) the employee’s attendance record and (c) the employee’s job performance.
Page 1 and 2: The Labour Relations BoardSaskatche
Page 3 and 4: 3unionized workforce at their plant
Page 5 and 6: 5[15] In addition, there was some h
Page 7: 7Employee “D”: He was on his pr
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?