Canadian coverage, with verified short holdings, original analysis and links to the underlying sources. A publication date isn't the same as a decision date. The dates below identify which is shown.
501 verified publications. Showing the 36 most recent.
The arbitrator dismissed a police officer's duty of fair representation complaint because, although an interim ruling allowed him to explain why he had rejected the association's offer to file a grievance, he ultimately declined to testify or present evidence. The decision turns on the complainant's failure to prove a breach, not on a finding that the association's representation was substantively adequate.
The arbitrator allowed a policy grievance to proceed because its challenge to unilateral changes in negotiated health benefits went beyond two individual claims, so the insurer's role in denying coverage didn't resolve the employer's collective agreement obligations. Evidence of later benefit coordination changes could be considered as part of the continuing policy dispute, provided the union supplied full particulars, but whether the changes breached the agreement remained undecided.
The arbitrator ordered Sofina Foods to resume providing employees' social insurance numbers with union dues reports despite its privacy objections, finding that the collective agreement obligation fell within an Income Tax Act exception and that the union's authority and employees' signed forms also supported consent. The award distinguishes SIN reporting from the stricter rules for personal health information and shows why an employer's valid privacy concerns don't necessarily relieve it of a negotiated disclosure obligation.
The arbitrator dismissed a family status accommodation grievance as moot after the employee left and no tangible harm or outstanding remedy remained, without deciding whether the original denial was discriminatory. Claims of harassment and retaliation added later through particulars couldn't enlarge the original grievance, showing why those allegations must be included when a grievance is filed.
An arbitrator permitted pension contribution grievances filed more than 10 years after the shortfall began because the collective agreement's separate pension dispute process contained no filing deadline and displaced the ordinary grievance time limits. The ruling protects claims to vested pension contributions despite delay, while leaving the extent of retroactive recovery for another hearing.
The BC Human Rights Tribunal dismissed a worker's complaint against his employer and union because merely asserting anxiety did not provide evidence that a protected disability prevented him from complying with a workplace mask requirement. Although anxiety can qualify as a disability, the missing evidence of a functional barrier meant the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success, without creating a blanket rule about mask mandates.
The BC Human Rights Tribunal held that employment under the Human Rights Code turns on actual dependence and control, not just which contractor issues a worker's paycheque or the formal structure of a construction project. It allowed the discrimination complaint to proceed against Bonatti and the project partnership while dismissing it against Kiewit for lack of evidence of employment control, without deciding whether discrimination occurred.
The Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board allowed witness subpoenas and cross examination in a bargaining unit dispute because conflicting affidavits and absent firsthand evidence left material questions about employees' actual supervisory duties unresolved. Directing a written hearing doesn't eliminate the obligation to test decisive factual conflicts, and the Board made no final ruling on union representation.
Following a 21 day hearing, the BC Human Rights Tribunal dismissed a professor's accommodation, discriminatory harassment and retaliation complaints because Douglas College had pursued reasonable workplace adjustments and requests for information, while the professor did not consistently cooperate in identifying workable restrictions. The College's response to workplace complaints was not shown to be discriminatory, and disciplinary letters addressing the manner of communication were not retaliation merely because the professor had asserted human rights.
A hiring manager's close relationship with the appointee, reliance on personal knowledge and use of an unstated criterion created a reasonable apprehension of bias even without proof of deliberate favouritism. The Board revoked the appointment, stressing that staffing authority must move to an impartial decision maker when personal relationships compromise the process.
The Board accepted 2 religious accommodation grievances because sincerely held beliefs need not match official doctrine or exclude other concerns, while dismissing 2 others where employees couldn't demonstrate sincerity. It ordered the Canada Revenue Agency to replace unpaid leave with paid leave and awarded $6,000 and $7,500 for pain and suffering, showing why each request needs an individual assessment.
The Tribunal considered the employer's records when deciding whether the complaint established a prima facie case of racial discrimination, finding that reliable performance evidence explained the decision not to hire without needing a separate justification defence. General evidence of systemic racism and speculation about other hires couldn't establish that race influenced this selection or that the employer followed a discriminatory hiring practice.
The Board held that the 40 day deadline to refer a grievance to adjudication starts when the employee receives the final response, not when the union receives it on the employee's behalf. It nevertheless refused to excuse a delay of 15 days because losing representation and reporting stress didn't establish diligence or a compelling reason for missing the deadline.
The Board accepted that some of the employee's objections had a genuine religious connection, but dismissed his accommodation grievance because he wouldn't answer relevant questions about inconsistencies and whether his beliefs were sincerely held. The threshold for sincerity is low, but a declaration of faith and scriptural references alone don't require an employer to grant an exemption.
The Board held that a union's later refusal to pursue a different grievance doesn't restart the 90 days to complain about an earlier decision involving the same dispute. The timely complaint also failed because the union had examined the collective agreement question in good faith, and disagreement with its conclusion didn't establish an arguable breach of fair representation.
The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board dismissed a renewed motion to recuse an adjudicator because objections to statements in her earlier ruling amounted to an unauthorized attempt to appeal that decision. The earlier reasons were not fresh evidence supporting reconsideration under section 43 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, leaving judicial review as the proper avenue for challenging alleged errors.
The Federal Court allowed judicial review of a Canadian Armed Forces grievance decision issued before the applicant's extended deadline for submissions, finding a breach of procedural fairness and returning the grievance to a new decision maker. Despite succeeding, the applicant was ordered to pay $500 in costs after declining a settlement offer that would have remedied the procedural defect.
The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board dismissed a staffing complaint challenging an EC 05 appointment made without public advertisement because the successful candidate met the merit criteria and documented restructuring and operational needs supported the process. Another employee's interest in the vacancy did not establish abuse of authority under the Public Service Employment Act.
The Board found religious discrimination where a federal employer denied a passport clerk's coronavirus vaccination exemption despite her sincerely held Christian beliefs and placed her on unpaid leave. It ordered lost salary and benefits for February 16 to June 20, 2022, compensation for missed overtime opportunities and $5,000 for pain and suffering, but rejected later wage losses and special damages that were not established.
The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board allowed a correctional nurse's grievance because his employer gave unreasonable notice of a denied vacation request and failed to make every reasonable effort to grant leave despite claimed operational needs. It declared breaches of clauses 15.05 and 15.06(a) of the collective agreement but refused punitive damages because exceptionally serious misconduct was not proven.
The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board dismissed a complaint alleging abuse of authority in a federal staffing appointment made without a job posting. It held that an administrative error concerning the area of selection did not invalidate the appointment and that the complainant had not established abuse of authority in assessing merit or choosing the selection process.
The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board upheld the dismissal of a federal human resources team leader for repeated sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct toward female subordinates. It found termination proportionate despite his years of service and rejected his progressive discipline and double jeopardy arguments, placing weight on the repeated misconduct, abuse of authority and lack of genuine remorse.
The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board dismissed a former term employee’s unfair labour practice complaint concerning the end of her employment in 2002. It held that only a bargaining agent could complain of interference under section 186(1) of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, and that her allegations did not disclose an arguable case of employer retaliation for protected union or grievance activity under section 186(2).
The Manitoba Labour Board dismissed F.H.’s request to reconsider the rejection of a duty of fair representation complaint against Unifor Local 3007. The application offered no new evidence or sufficient legal or labour relations policy grounds to revisit the earlier finding that the complaint was premature and disclosed no prima facie breach.
The Manitoba Labour Board dismissed a bartender’s duty of fair representation complaint against Workers United Canada Council. The group grievance was still being pursued, making that part of the complaint premature, and the union’s mistaken initial view about bargaining unit membership did not establish arbitrary conduct, discrimination or bad faith after it investigated and reconsidered the issue.
The Manitoba Labour Board ruled that Dynacare’s community specimen collection and laboratory testing and reporting functions must be maintained as essential services during a strike or lockout because their interruption would foreseeably threaten Manitobans’ health and safety. It rejected the union’s procedural fairness objection and directed the parties to negotiate an essential services agreement rather than setting staffing levels in this decision.
The Manitoba Labour Board dismissed a health care aide’s duty of fair representation complaint as unduly delayed because it was filed about 11 months after she elected early retirement instead of termination. The Board also found no prima facie breach because the union explained her options and negotiated retirement with benefits.
The Manitoba Labour Board dismissed Y.D.’s duty of fair representation complaint about a withdrawn family status accommodation grievance and subsequent termination, finding no prima facie breach where the union investigated, advocated and relied on legal advice. The Board confirmed that a union may withdraw or decline grievances without the employee’s consent and did not decide the merits of the employer’s accommodation or dismissal decisions.
The Manitoba Labour Board dismissed a teacher’s complaint against the Manitoba Teachers’ Society after finding that the union reasonably relied on legal advice to settle and withdraw a pay overpayment grievance without her consent. The complaint was timely because the union continued representing her into 2026, but disagreement with the settlement did not establish arbitrary conduct under section 20.
The Manitoba Labour Board dismissed Smart Box Packaging’s bad faith bargaining application as premature because negotiations and conciliation remained active and did not warrant intervention at that stage. It also refused to reject submissions merely because AI helped refine them, emphasizing that parties remain responsible for verifying the accuracy of their filings.
The Manitoba Labour Board dismissed G.Y.'s duty of fair representation complaint against CLAC Local 152 because the allegations from 2023 and 2024 were unduly delayed. The union's response to a February 2026 records request and its decision to defer discussions about workplace relationships during medical leave disclosed no prima facie arbitrariness, discrimination or bad faith.
The Manitoba Labour Board reduced the deposit required for X.T. to appeal an employment standards order concerning V.Q., finding that financial hardship and an arguable challenge to significant overtime claims made the full deposit unreasonable. It fixed the deposit at $12,625, leaving $7,625 payable after the $5,000 already remitted, without deciding the underlying wage dispute.
The Manitoba Labour Board reduced the deposit required for X.T. to appeal an employment standards order concerning S.E., accepting evidence of financial hardship and an arguable dispute over whether S.E. had ever been employed by the hotel. It fixed the deposit at $12,625, leaving $7,625 to pay after the $5,000 already deposited, without deciding the merits of the wage claim.
The Manitoba Labour Board reduced the appeal deposit for a director facing an employment standards order involving N.W., finding financial hardship and arguable challenges to overtime calculations and worker recruitment fees. It fixed the deposit at $17,252.36, requiring another $12,252.36 after the $5,000 already paid, and left the underlying wage and recruitment claims for the appeal.
The Manitoba Labour Board reduced the deposit required to appeal a director's employment standards order concerning G.U. after considering the director's financial hardship, disputed overtime and alleged worker recruitment fees. It fixed the deposit at $23,020.26, leaving $18,020.26 after crediting $5,000 already remitted, while expressly leaving the merits of the wage dispute undecided.
The Manitoba Labour Board dismissed an employee's duty of fair representation complaint after finding the union had genuinely investigated his promotion grievance, negotiated a settlement with his agreement and offered internal review when he later changed his position. Disagreement with the union's assessment and dissatisfaction with the settlement did not establish arbitrary, discriminatory or bad faith representation under The Labour Relations Act.
See how a weekly briefing brings relevant developments together. Choose your divisions and jurisdictions before deciding whether membership is useful for you.
A preview doesn't enroll you in email. Optional delivery requires a separate choice.