Richard L. Edgar

Telus and Telecommunications Workers Union United Steelworkers, Local 1944 (unreported)

On the merits portion of this case, we successfully argued that the Employer had created a new job and underpaid the employees doing the work in that job. This decision addresses the remedy.

The employer wanted to deduct certain incentive payments from the calculation of the extra wages that they were owed on the theory that “if we had known we had to pay that much in wages, we never would have paid them all this incentive money, we would have paid them far less in our incentive program".

The arbitrator agreed with us that the Employer’s position was speculative and that they could not deduct these monies.

The result was a difference of over $400,000, with the final tally being $740,000.

This was the largest monetary award that the Union had ever achieved for its members. They describe this victory on their website at this link: https://usw1944.ca/articles/concierge-arbitration-win?fbclid=IwAR2BudEvCvhliPFqKulOE-6iEBEimXwBlWBAPGfar7Q1LCmvQqXCGQEoe4A

Read the decision here >>

Vancouver Drydock Company Ltd. and Marine Workers & Boilermakers Industrial Union, Local 1 (GC Grievance), 2021 CanLII 150912

In this decision, the Union successfully argued that automatic exclusion of employees on methadone from a safety-sensitive workplace is discriminatory. The Employer refused to allow the Grievor to work because he was undergoing methadone maintenance therapy for opioid addiction. Richard L Edgar and Janna Crown represented the Union and argued that an individualized assessment of the Grievor’s abilities was required. The arbitrator agreed with the Union and struck down the Employer’s blanket rule of not allowing employees to work while undergoing methadone maintenance therapy. Expert evidence adduced at the hearing established that at least some individuals are able to work in safety-sensitive environments while undergoing methadone maintenance therapy, and there was evidence that the Grievor had safely worked for another employer in a similar safety-sensitive environment while undergoing methadone maintenance therapy. 

View Case >

Vancouver Drydock Co. Ltd. v. Marine Workers and Boilermakers Industrial Union, Local 1, 2020 CanLII 75896

The arbitrator agreed with the union that the results of drug testing that was ruled to be improper, including any evidence that flowed directly from the testing (referral to an IME doctor,  monitoring, etc), was not admissible in the proceeding.  To admit the evidence would tacitly condone improper drug testing.  In doing so the arbitrator disagreed with an approach found in some Alberta cases, including ATCO Electric [2017] A.G.A.A. No. 7, a case which employer’s typically rely upon to seek to admit such evidence.

Read the case here.

Vancouver Drydock Co. Ltd v. Marine Workers and Boilermakers Industrial Union, Local 1, 2020 CanLII 75896

The Union successfully argued that the Employer did not have the right to require the greivor to take a urine test pursuant to its substance use policy. The Arbitrator agreed with the Union that the Employer did not have reasonable grounds to insist on a urine test, including because there were no signs of impairment. The Arbitrator further agreed with the Union that whether it has grounds to demand a breath test (for alcohol),  a urine test (for drug use), or both,  must be considered by the Employer and it is not automatic that just because the Employer had reasonable grounds to demand a breath test, that it had grounds to demand a urine test.

View the case here.

Lafarge Canada v International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Lodge D385 (Aguilar - Hours of Work Grievance)

The Employer unilaterally created an afternoon shift that had not been negotiated with the Union and assigned an employee to it.  All shifts in the agreement had traditionally been negotiated.  The Arbitrator agreed with the Union that the Employer could not create a non negotiated shift (except for abnormal or emergency circumstances) and allowed the grievance.

The take away is that when parties negotiate specific shifts and hours for employees those must be respected and cannot be unilaterally changed pursuant to “management rights”.

The case can be read here.

Delta Cement v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Local Lodge D277 (Roller Mill Contracting Out Grievance), January 16, 2020 (unreported) (McPhillips)

Richard Edgar and Natasha Edgar, on behalf of the Union, successfully argued that the employer was in breach of the Collective Agreement when it contracted out maintenance work. This decision ended many years of improper contracting out by the Employer which was undermining of the bargaining unit.

View case >

Working on Coast Salish Territory - shared lands of xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam), Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish) & səlil̓wətaʔɬ (Tsleil-Waututh), whom we thank for their forbearance.

Latest Tweets