I. WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT
1. As originally styled in the grievance the Union’s focus was on the
“Administrative Letters” concerning absences which have been issued by Bell as part of
its Attendance Management Policy (“AMP”). The Union alleged that the Administrative
Letters are being issued in a manner that is unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary and contrary to
the collective agreement. At the hearing the Union modified this somewhat by adding
that the entire AMP is discriminatory, as well as unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary and
contrary to the collective agreement, and also contrary to what is referred to in labour
relations shorthand as the KVP principles (established by the KVP Co. Ltd. v. Lumber &
Sawmill Workers’ Union, Local 2537, (1965) 16 L.A.C. 73 (Robinson) decision). In his
opening statement, Mr. Russell cited Articles 1 (Employment Equity – specifically
Article 1.02 (Discrimination), 9 (Sickness Absence), 12 (Discipline), 27 (Management
Rights), Part III of the Canada Labour Code, and the Canadian Human Rights Act in
support of the Union’s allegations.
2. The Union submits that Bell’s AMP or use of the Administrative Letters in issue
must be struck down and seeks appropriate Declarations and Orders in that respect.
3. Bell denies that there is anything in its AMP or about its use of the Administrative
Letters that is contrary to the collective agreement, legislation, or unreasonable, arbitrary
or discriminatory or otherwise contrary to labour relations principles. Bell submits that
its approach to attendance management is reasonable and necessary for legitimate
workplace management purposes, and to offer employees appropriate health and safety
support in a timely way.
Visit the Resources page below for more Awards