FPSLREB Decisions

The complainant made two unfair-labour-practice complaints that included six allegations and filed one grievance to challenge two one-day suspensions. He alleged that the employer denigrated him, in retaliation for attempting to raise a concern that the members whom he represented had expressed. He alleged that he was given an expected-conduct letter as retaliation for his union activities. The employer asked the Board to reject those two allegations, as they were made after the deadline. The Board concluded that both allegations were made late. It is irrelevant that the complainant perceived in hindsight that those events were part of a series of employer actions. He alleged that it denigrated him for raising union issues during a presentation. According to the employer, the director intervened so that the presentation could resume its normal course. The Board found that the employer did not intimidate or discriminate against the complainant because he was a union representative. He obstructed its legitimate work activity, and it attempted to define the moment when union issues could be raised. He alleged that it attempted to control his union schedule and that it called him to a disciplinary hearing when he challenged that control. The Board concluded that the evidence set out that managers discussed the possibility of releasing the complainant from his work duties, to attend a meeting to represent a bargaining unit member. As for the disciplinary summons, there was no evidence as to the basis on which the employer sent it. The complainant alleged that a manager’s attitude toward him during a teleconference had been unfair, disdainful, and humiliating. Thus, the employer had discouraged him from performing his union duties effectively. The Board concluded that the employer did not intimidate, discriminate against, or threaten him for carrying out union activities. It suspended him for repeatedly disrupting the meeting and for not complying with the manager’s request to save his questions for the end. He alleged that the employer did not recognize his union role and that union-management meetings were infrequent. The employer stated that it met with him regularly. The Board concluded that he did not make out an arguable case with respect to that allegation. The employer suspended him for one day for his insubordination during a teleconference. He argued that he had the right and obligation to raise issues as a union representative and that he was entitled to the flexibility that must be afforded to union representatives in their interactions with management. The Board allowed the grievor’s grievance. It concluded that his actions came close to the line that limits the normal scope of union powers. His conduct fell within that scope; therefore, he was entitled to the protection afforded by the important principle of flexibility for union representatives. The employer suspended him for one day for insubordination. He entered the workplace without authorization during the COVID-19 pandemic. He believed that he had obtained authorization. The Board allowed the grievance. The employer did not demonstrate that he had received a clearly communicated order not to report to the office. Several communication errors were identified.

Complaints dismissed.
Grievance allowed.