question archive Each group of 5 members will engage in the mock arbitration for 15 minutes, For the mock arbitration- ? Instructor will act as the Arbitrator and Students will play the following roles- Union representative, Union Counsel, Employer, Employer Counsel, Employee ? There will be four stages- Introductions, Opening statements with summary of your positions, Employee direct examination by Union and cross-examination by Employer, Closing arguments by Union and Employer
Each group of 5 members will engage in the mock arbitration for 15 minutes, For the mock arbitration- ? Instructor will act as the Arbitrator and Students will play the following roles- Union representative, Union Counsel, Employer, Employer Counsel, Employee ? There will be four stages- Introductions, Opening statements with summary of your positions, Employee direct examination by Union and cross-examination by Employer, Closing arguments by Union and Employer
Subject:ManagementPrice: Bought3
Each group of 5 members will engage in the mock arbitration for 15 minutes,
For the mock arbitration-
? Instructor will act as the Arbitrator and Students will play the following
roles- Union representative, Union Counsel, Employer, Employer Counsel, Employee
? There will be four stages- Introductions, Opening statements with summary of your
positions, Employee direct examination by Union and cross-examination by Employer,
Closing arguments by Union and Employer.
The Case is given below;
IN THE MATTER OF THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT
ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
LABOURERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL
183
(The "Union")
-and-
HALLMARK HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES INC.
RE: DISCHARGE GRIEVANCE
BEFORE: T.E. Armstrong, Arbitrator
APPEARANCES:
For the Employer: Andrew Reynolds, Counsel
Keith Mottram
For the Union:
HEARING:
Andrew Black, Counsel
John Da Silva, Union Representative
Ryan Hilborn, Student
JUNE 24, 2016
DECISION
(The "Employer")
1. The Union filed a grievance on behalf of the Grievor on March 8, 2016, alleging
that she had been terminated without cause and harassed by the Employer. I have
not named the Grievor in view of the fact that allegations have been made
concerning her mental state which I have concluded should not be attributed to a
named Individual without evidentiary support.
2. The Grievor performed housekeeping services for clients of the Employer. On
March 8, 2016, she received a letter from the Employer's Director of Operations
repeating previous representations made to her and to the Union concerning the
Employer's contention that she had been "exhibiting paranoia and other mentalhealth
related behaviours while at work". The letter stipulates eight specific
situations claimed to supp01i its allegations.
3. In the same letter, the Employer states that the Grievor should remain off work
until a duly qualified medical practitioner had ce1iified her ability to return to
work, adding that at that point she was not being terminated or disciplined in any
way, indicating that it was hoped that following any treatment opportunities
available she would be able to resume employment in the near future.
4. On the same date, i.e., March 8, 2016, the Union filed a grievance alleging that
the Grievor had been terminated unfairly and harassed by the Employer. The
grievance asks, inter alia, that the Grievor be reinstated, compensated for lost
earnings and awarded damages.
5. On March 16, 2016, the Union and its Counsel met with the Grievor.
Subsequently, a letter from the Union's Counsel dated March 21, 2016 was written
to the Grievor confirming that an independent medical examination had been
scheduled for her on March 30, 2016. The time, place and identity of the physician
was set out in the letter, as were two medical releases which the Grievor was asked
to complete.
6. On March 28, 2016, a letter marked "Delivered Via Courier and Registered
Mail" was addressed to the Grievor by the Union's Counsel summarizing relevant
previous events. In particular, the letter states that at the March 16, 2016 meeting,
the Grievor had been advised that the grievance had been filed on her behalf and
that the Union had advised her that in light of the Employer's position "the prudent
interim course of action would be for you to undergo an Independent Medical
Examination ("IME"). Counsel added that "the sooner that we can provide your
employer with a medical opinion addressing the alleged concern, the sooner we
would expect Hallmark to reinstate you on its own accord ... "
7. On May 9, 2016, in a letter marked "Hand Delivered", Counsel for the Union
advised the Grievor of the fact that the grievance had been referred to me as
Arbitrator and advised her of the date, time and place of the hearing. The letter also
requested the Grievor's attendance at the Union's office on June 21, 2016 at
2:00pm to prepare for the hearing.
8. On May 18, 2016, Counsel for the Union wrote a letter marked "Delivered Via
Registered Mail" to the Grievor setting out the attempts by Representative Da Silva
to hand deliver to the Grievor the letter of May 9, 2016, as well as Mr. Da Silva's
numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact her by telephone and SMS text
message. The letter requests the Griever to contact Representative Da Silva
immediately.
9. On June 7, 20 16, in an letter marked "Delivered Via Registered Mail" Counsel
for the Union stated that his letter of May 18, 2016 had been returned to the Union
as "refused by recipient". The letter also referred to a telephone conversation
between Counsel and the Grievor on June 7, 2016, during which the Griever is said
to have asse1ted that she had no intention or interest in returning to work with the
Employer, nor to attend or participate in the scheduled arbitration and that she did
not wish to have anything fmther to do with the Union.
10. There is no disagreement between Counsel as to the process described in the
above paragraphs. In the circumstances Counsel for the Employer asks me to
dismiss the grievance. Counsel for the Union asks that I adjourn the hearing sine
die. In support of his position, Counsel for the Employer cites the following cases:
Liquor Control Board of Ontario and OPSEU [2008] O.G.S.B.A. No. 118;
Y.W.C.A. of Metropolitan Toronto and CUPE, Local 2189 [1995] 5975; Sobey's v.
UFCW, Local 175 [2002] O.L.A.A. No.595; Deloitte & Touche v. S.E.I.U., Local
1 [2011] 6128.
11. On the basis of the documentary evidence adduced and the representations
made, it would appear that the Grievor was given every reasonable opp01tunity to
appear before me on June 24, 2016. In addition, the case law relied upon by
Counsel for the Employer, in the circumstances of those cases, clearly supports
dismissal of the grievance.
12. However, this is a situation in which mental instability has been alleged. In
these somewhat unique circumstances, my decision is to retain jurisdiction. In
doing so I wish to make it clear that it does not follow that in the unlikely event
that the Union requests that I set a future date to hear the merits of the dispute, I
will do so. If that occurs, I will hear representations from both parties as to the
circumstances surrounding the request for continuation. In that situation, it should
be understood that there will be a substantial onus on the Union to satisfy me that
the Grievor's apparent abandonment of the grievance set for hearing on June 24,
2016, should not preclude a reconvened hearing and a determination on the merits.
