HRMT 5190 Arbitration Case Book - Group Two.pdf

1
Kwantlen Polytechnic University
Arbitration Simulation
Case Book
Group Two
Ellenore Abeleda
Sarah Ukot
Brenda Mayurajith
Melville School of Business, Kwantlen Polytechnic University
HRMT 5190: Labour and Employee Relations
Ian Kato
November 1, 2023

2
Table of Contents
I. Marking Guide --------------------------------------------------------------- 3
II. Grievance Letter ------------------------------------------------------------ 4
III. Grievance Reply – Management Response ------------------------ 6
IV. Theory Of The Case -------------------------------------------------------- 9
V. Timeline Of Events --------------------------------------------------------- 14
VI. Evidence Documents ------------------------------------------------------ 15
VII. Witness List ------------------------------------------------------------------- 17
VIII. Agreed Statement Of Facts ---------------------------------------------- 19
IX. Law ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20
X. Argument ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 32
XI. Remedy ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36
XII. Bamos -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36
XIII. Appendix ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 37

6
Grievance Reply- Management Response
December 11, 2022
Price Smart Foods (PSF)
Burnaby
BC V5H 2Z
United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW)
Local 1518
32 Primrose Street,
Burnaby, BC V6R0W8
Dear Irene,
Re: Grievance of Angela Chan (LDH1811-2022)
I am writing in reply to your grievance of December 10, 2022, filed on behalf of
Angela Chan, who was terminated during her probationary period. We appreciate
your diligence in advocating for your members and welcome the opportunity to
provide our perspective on this matter.
First and foremost, we acknowledge the Union's concerns regarding the initial
termination of Angela Chan and the absence of a written evaluation prior to her
termination. We understand that the omission of a written evaluation was an
oversight on our part, and we sincerely apologize for any confusion or
inconvenience this may have caused.

7
In response to this concern, we promptly took corrective action. Angela Chan was
reinstated on October 19, 2022, and subsequently received a written evaluation
from Carla, the Assistant Store Manager. This evaluation documented Angela's job
performance, which was found to be satisfactory. However, it also highlighted two
separate customer complaints regarding Angela's attitude and the fact that she also
called in sick three times since being hired in August 2022.
It is essential to emphasize that the decision to terminate Angela Chan on
December 3, 2022, was not taken lightly. It was based on well-documented
performance issues that raised genuine concerns about her suitability for continued
employment with our organization. Section 6.01 of the Collective Agreement
explicitly grants the Employer the sole discretion to assess an employee's suitability
during the probationary period, a right we exercised thoughtfully and in accordance
with our commitment to maintaining high standards of professionalism and
customer service.
We want to stress that Angela's performance issues are not mere formalities but
are rooted in substantial customer complaints and absenteeism that affected our
business operations and the satisfaction of our valued customers.
We respect the Union's role in advocating for its members and are committed to
engaging in constructive dialogue to reach a resolution that is equitable and in
adherence to the Collective Agreement.
However, we must emphasize that our decision to terminate Angela Chan was
made after careful consideration of her performance and in alignment with company

8
standards. We firmly believe it was a necessary step in the best interests of our
business, our employees, and our customers.
Considering the above, we request that the grievance be dismissed. We believe
that the termination of Angela Chan was valid and consistent with the terms of the
Collective Agreement.
Sincerely,
RaymondSimms
Raymond Simms
Store Manager

9
Theory of the Case
Type of Case
This case involves the probationary termination of Angela Chan, an employee at
PSF, based on her performance during the probationary period. Angela Chan was
initially terminated, reinstated, and subsequently terminated again. This case falls
under the category of "Probationary Termination and Interpretation."
Overview:
Angela Chan was an employee of PSF, a unionized grocery store in Burnaby,
B.C. She was on a four-month probationary period during her employment. Her
overall job performance evaluation was satisfactory; however, there were two
customer complaints regarding her allegedly being rude. Additionally, Angela
called in sick on three occasions during her probationary period.
The employer decided to dismiss Angela, citing her unsuitability for continued
employment. They argued that she did not pass her probationary period, and
therefore, her termination was not subject to the grievance procedure. The
employer pointed to Collective Agreement section 6.01, which states that the
decision to retain an employee during probation is solely at the discretion of the
employer and that termination during this period is not subject to the grievance
procedure.
Notably, there was no shop steward present during the meeting where Angela
was dismissed. Despite this, Angela demanded her union to file a grievance for
what she believed was an unjust termination.

10
Key Points:
• Angela Chan worked at a unionized grocery store in Burnaby, B.C., called
PSF.
• She was on a four-month probationary period during her employment.
• Angela received a satisfactory overall evaluation but had two customer
complaints about rudeness.
• She called in sick three times during her probationary period.
• The employer claimed that Angela did not pass her probation and
terminated her employment.
• The employer argued that termination during probation was not subject to
the grievance procedure, citing Collective Agreement section 6.01 which
states that “The decision whether to retain or not to retain the employee’s
services shall be the sole right of the employer and any termination
occurring during that period shall not be subject to Sections 17 (Grievance
Procedure) and 18 (Arbitration) of this Agreement. It is agreed that the
probationary period will not apply if it can be shown that an employee has
been terminated for any lawful Union activity, in accordance with Section
19.08”.
• There was no shop steward present during Angela's dismissal meeting.
• Angela demanded her union to file a grievance, asserting that her
termination was unjust.
Argument and Preferred Outcome
Angela was placed on a four-month probationary period, during which her
employment was terminated because she did not pass her probation and was not

11
suitable to continue with the employment. The Collective Agreement stipulates
that all new hires must complete a four-month probationary period. During this
time, employees are evaluated, and the decision to retain or terminate a
probationary employee "shall be the sole right of the Employer." This provision
emphasizes the significance of this period for determining an employee's
continued suitability for employment. Angela's written evaluation reflected
satisfactory job performance; however, customer complaints were noted. This
revealed two separate customer complaints about Angela's attitude, with both
customers reporting rudeness. Also, Angela called in sick three times in a short
period following her August hiring. While sick leave is a legitimate benefit, frequent
unplanned absences during a probationary period may raise concerns about an
employee's dependability and capacity to fulfill job requirements. The Collective
Agreement specifies that the Employer has the exclusive right and responsibility
to terminate employees during their probationary period. This is supported by the
CA Section 6.01, which describes the rights of management, including the right to
terminate employees for just or proper cause.
In light of these considerations and the terms of the Collective Agreement, the
decision to terminate Angela for a second time during her probationary period was
made in accordance with the terms of the contract and management's rights. It is
not subject to the grievance procedure outlined in the Agreement and is based on
valid concerns about her performance and conduct at work. Therefore, we request
that the grievance be dismissed.
Applicable Laws: Collective Agreement Section 6.01, 17,18 & 19 and Section
5.06

12
Section 6.01 states that “The Union agrees that the management of the
company, including the right to plan, direct and control the Store operations, the
direction of the working force and the termination of employees for just or proper
cause, are the sole rights and functions of the Employer. During the first four (4)
calendar months of employment, each new employee shall be on probation and
will receive a written evaluation within three (3) months of employment. The
decision whether to retain or not to retain the employee’s services shall be the
sole right of the Employer and any termination occurring during that period shall
not be subject to Sections 17 (Grievance Procedure) and 18 (Arbitration) of this
Agreement. It is agreed that the probationary period will not apply if it can be
shown that an employee has been terminated for any lawful Union activity, in
accordance with Section 19.08.
Section 5.06 states that Shop Stewards Recognition: It is recognized that
shop stewards may be elected or appointed by the Union from time to time
and the Employer will be kept informed by the Union of such appointments
or elections. The Employer agrees to recognize shop stewards and
alternate shop stewards for the purposes of overseeing the terms of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement being implemented and for the purposes
of presenting complaints and grievances to the designated management of
the store. The Employer agrees to recognize Shop Stewards and alternate
Shop Stewards in the Store. Shop Stewards may introduce new members
to the Union on their own time to present membership cards for signature.
The Shop Steward and, in the absence of the Shop Steward, another
member of the Bargaining Unit of the employee's choice shall be present

13
when a member of the Bargaining Unit: (i) Is given a reprimand which is to
be entered on the employee's personnel file. (ii) Is suspended or
discharged.
Applicable BAMO
1. Offering Angela a severance package of one week’s pay and allowing her
to go.
2. Assistance with finding alternative employment as a gesture of goodwill for
her.
3. Providing an opportunity for Angela to address the performance issues and
undergo a one-week performance improvement program.
4. Reinstate Angela, no back pay and a new probationary period of one
month.

14
Timeline of Events
August 19, 2022 Angela Chan was hired as a Cashier at the Burnaby
store of PSF.
August 20, 2022 Angela attended the PSF customer orientation/training
program for cashiers
September 15,
2022
The first documented customer complaint about
Angela’s attitude was received.
October 11,
2022
Angela was informed of her first termination by the store
manager.
October 19,
2022
Angela was reinstated after the union received her initial
termination.
November 5,
2022
A second documented customer complaint regarding
Angela’s attitude was received.
November 20,
2022
Angela called in sick for the 3rd
time since her hiring in
August.
November 30,
2022
Angela received a written evaluation from the assistant
store manager.
December 03,
2022
Angela was terminated for the second time for
performance issues and absenteeism.
December 10,
2022
The union filed a grievance on behalf of Angela
contesting her second termination.
December 10,
2022
Angela Chan’s grievance letter from the union was
received via email.
December 11,
2022
A grievance response was sent to the union via email by
the management.
December 19,
2022
Grievance meeting.

15
Evidence Documents
Events and Evidence List
Date Event Evidence Exhibit
August 19,
2022
Angela Chan was hired as a
cashier at the Burnaby store of
PSF. This marked the beginning of
her employment.
A copy of the
Probationary
Employment
Contract
Exhibit
A
August 19,
2022
Acknowledgment of the
Company’s customer code of
conduct ethics by Angela.
A signed copy of
the PSF Code of
Conduct Ethics by
Angela
Exhibit
L
August 20,
2022
PSF Customer orientation/training
program for cashiers.
A copy of the
customer training
attendance list
Exhibit
M
September
15, 2022
The first documented customer
complaint about Angela's attitude
was received. This complaint
raised concerns about her
behaviour with customers.
Captured footage
from the store’s
CCTV and copies
of the complaint
form from the
customer
Exhibit
B &
Exhibit
C
September
22, 2022
Angela Chan’s first call in sick
leave documented by the Store
Manager.
Records of
Angela's sick leave
and company
policies related to
sick leave
Exhibit
D &
Exhibit
E
October 4,
2022
Angela Chan’s second call in sick
leave documented by the Store
Manager.
Records of
Angela's sick leave
and company
policies related to
sick leave
Exhibit
D &
Exhibit
E
October
11, 2022
Angela was informed of her first
termination during her
probationary period by the Store
Manager.
A copy of the
termination letter of
Angela Chan
Exhibit
F
October
19, 2022
Angela was reinstated after the
Union received her initial
termination. This reinstatement

16
followed the realization that a
written evaluation, required within
three months of employment, had
not been provided to Angela prior
to her first termination.
A Copy of the
reinstatement letter
of Angela Chan
Exhibit
G
November
5, 2022
A second documented customer
complaint regarding Angela's
attitude was received. This
indicates that concerns about her
behaviour persisted after her
reinstatement.
Captured footage
from the store’s
CCTV and copy of
the complaint form
from the customer
Exhibit
H &
Exhibit I
November
20, 2022
Angela called in sick for the third
time since her hiring in August.
The frequency of her sick leave
have raised concerns about her
reliability.
Records of
Angela's sick leave
and company
policies related to
sick leave
Exhibit
D &
Exhibit
E
November
30, 2022
Angela received a written
evaluation from Carla, the
Assistant Store Manager. This
evaluation cited both the customer
complaints about her attitude and
her sick days.
A copy of Angela's
written evaluation
conducted by the
Assistant Store
Manager
Exhibit
J
December
3, 2022
Angela was terminated for the
second time for performance
issues and absenteeism.
A copy of the
termination letter of
Angela Chan
Exhibit
K
December
10, 2022
The Union filed a grievance on
behalf of Angela, contesting her
second termination.
December
10, 2022
Angela Chan’s grievance letter
from the Union was received via
email.
December
11, 2022
A grievance response was sent to
the Union via email by the
Management.
December
19, 2022
A grievance meeting was held to
discuss and address the issues
raised in the Union's grievance
letter.

17
Witness List
Witness 1: Raymond Fisher
Position: Store Manager
Contact Info: raymond.fisher@gmail.com / 778- 567-8910
Role: Store Manager Raymond made the initial decision to terminate Angela and
can provide insights into the reasons for her termination.
Questions:
1. Can you provide details about the customer complaints related to Angela's
attitude?
2. What were the specific concerns that led to Angela's first termination?
3. Were there any prior discussions or warnings given to Angela about her
performance or behavior?
4. Did you consider any alternatives to termination during the probationary
period?
Witness 2: Carla Smith
Position: Assistant Store Manager
Contact Info: carla.smith@gmail.com / 778- 123 -4567
Role: Carla conducted Angela's written evaluation and made the decision to
terminate her for the second time.
Questions:
1. What were the key findings in Angela's written evaluation, and how did they
influence the decision to terminate her?
2. Can you explain the reasons behind Angela's second termination during
her probationary period?
3. Did you discuss any performance improvement plans or feedback with
Angela before her second termination?
4. What role did customer complaints play in the decision to terminate
Angela?
Witness 3: James Martin
Position: Customer who filed a complaint

18
Contact Info: james.martin@gmail.com/ 778- 098- 7654
Role: James is witnesses to the customer complaint about Angela's attitude, and
his testimony can provide insight into Angela's interactions with customers.
Questions:
1. Can you describe the incidents that led to your complaints about Angela's
attitude?
2. Were there specific behaviours or interactions that troubled you during your
interactions with Angela?
3. Did you report these incidents to the store management or any other staff
members?
4. Do you believe that Angela's behaviour during your interactions was
indicative of a larger issue?
Witness 4: Lisa Johnson
Position: Customer who filed a complaint
Contact Info: lisa.johnson@gmail.com/ 778- 738- 2896
Role: Lisa is a witnesses to the customer complaint about Angela's attitude, and
her testimony can provide insight into Angela's interactions with customers.
Questions:
1. Can you describe the incidents that led to your complaints about Angela's
attitude?
2. Were there specific behaviours or interactions that troubled you during your
interactions with Angela?
3. Did you report these incidents to the store management or any other staff
members?
4. Do you believe that Angela's behaviour during your interactions was
indicative of a larger issue?

19
Agreed Statement of Facts
In the matter of Angela Chan, the parties agreed on the following facts which are
NOT in Dispute:
1. The grievor is a cashier within three months in PSF Burnaby, a locally owned
grocery chain.
2. Employed as a cashier on August 19, 2022
3. Angela was terminated during her probationary period on October 11, 2022
4. Without the presence of the Shop Steward on the first termination
5. Without receiving a written evaluation on the first termination
6. The Collective Agreement includes a four-month probationary period and
requires a written evaluation within three months of employment.
7. The Union grieved the termination, and Angela was reinstated on October 19,
2022, after the employer realized their error and accepted the grievance.
8. A written evaluation was provided to Angela after a few weeks, stating that her
job performance was satisfactory
9. There are two customer complaints on her behavior described as rude,
reported to Raymond.
10. Angela also called in sick three times since she joined in August 2022.
11. Angela was terminated again on December 3, 2022, without a union steward.
She wants the Union to step in and challenge the unjust termination.
12. No Shop Steward on the second termination.
Kristine Calalang Sarah Ukot
Signed for the Union Signed for the Management

20
Law
Collective Agreement - Excerpts of the key article(s)
SECTION 5.06 - Shop Stewards Recognition
It is recognized that shop stewards may be elected or appointed by the
Union from time to time and the Employer will be kept informed by the
Union of such appointments or elections. The Employer agrees to
recognize shop stewards and alternate shop stewards for the purposes of
overseeing the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement being
implemented and for the purposes of presenting complaints and grievances
to the designated management of the store. The Employer agrees to
recognize Shop Stewards and alternate Shop Stewards in the Store. Shop
Stewards may introduce new members to the Union on their own time to
present membership cards for signature. The Shop Steward and, in the
absence of the Shop Steward, another member of the Bargaining Unit of
the employee's choice shall be present when a member of the Bargaining
Unit: (i) Is given a reprimand which is to be entered on the employee's
personnel file. (ii) Is suspended or discharged.
SECTION 6 – Union's Recognition of Management's Rights
6.01 The Union agrees that the management of the company, including the
right to plan, direct and control the Store operations, the direction of the
working force and the termination of employees for just or proper cause,
are the sole rights and functions of the Employer. During the first four (4)
calendar months of employment, each new employee shall be on probation
and will receive a written evaluation within three (3) months of employment.

21
The decision whether to retain or not to retain the employee’s services shall
be the sole right of the Employer and any termination occurring during that
period shall not be subject to Sections 17 (Grievance Procedure) and 18
(Arbitration) of this Agreement. It is agreed that the probationary period will
not apply if it can be shown that an employee has been terminated for any
lawful Union activity, in accordance with Section 19.08.
Those matters requiring judgment as to the competency of employees are
also agreed to be the sole right and function of management, subject
however, to discharge of employees on grounds of alleged incompetence
being processed under Sections 17 (Grievance Procedure) and 18
(Arbitration) of this Collective Agreement, providing that such employees
have been employed by the Employer four (4) calendar months or more.
The Parties agree that the foregoing enumeration of management’s rights
shall not be deemed to exclude other recognized functions of management
not specifically covered in this Agreement. The Employer, therefore, retains
all rights not otherwise specifically covered in this Agreement.
Statute
Case #1
24 C.L.A.S. 140
British Columbia Arbitration
Westfair Foods Co. and UFCW, Local 777, Re
1991 CarswellBC 3157, 24 C.L.A.S. 140

22
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: WESTFAIR FOODS MD.,
EMPLOYER, AND: THE UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS,
LOCAL NO. 777 UNION Grievance of PAMELA MANWEILLER
majority: Morrison, Checov and dissent: Smith
Judgment: June 13, 1991
Docket: None given.
Counsel: for THE EMPLOYER TERRY WOLFE
for THE UNION HUGH FINNAMORE
Subject: Labour; Public
EMPLOYMENT STATUS ---Probationary employees — Discharge
Grievor discharged for attitude problem particularly discourteous handling of
customers — Standards adequately conveyed and grievor previously warned —
Discharge upheld — Grievance dismissed.
DISCIPLINARY ACTION --- Procedural requirements — Union representation
Collective agreement does not confer right to representation in circumstances of
either verbal reprimand or termination— Verbal warning and discharge of
probationary employee procedurally sound — Grievance dismissed on merits (22
pp.).
Case #1 Citation and Summary
Mr. Chair, the "Westfair Foods Co. and U.F.C.W., Local 777" case is about the
termination of a probationary part-time employee, Pamela Manweiller, from a retail
food store owned and operated by Westfair Foods Co. In that case, Pamela
Manweiller was in her probationary period as a cashier in the spring of 1990 when

23
an incident on July 12, 1990, led to her termination by the Employer, Westfair
Foods. The Employer argued that Pamela was terminated due to her attitude
problems, particularly in her interactions with customers, even after being
cautioned on May 25, 1990, due to an incident that occurred on May 11, 1990,
and there was no change of attitude. The union disputed the termination, claiming
that it lacked just cause, and they also raised concerns about the grievance
procedure, specifically the absence of a union representative when Pamela was
terminated based on section "32.3 Reprimands and Security checks, which states
that (a) A written reprimand or a warning letter shall not be given to an employee
except in the presence of the shop steward, or in his absence, another member of
the bargaining 'unit, selected by the employee.”
“And the arbitrator decided that the employer has the discretion to terminate a
probationary employee but needed to do so on reasonable grounds, and the
grievance was dismissed.
The Arbitrator in this case referenced the frequently quoted portion of the
Porcupine Area Ambulance case (Porcupine Area Ambulance Service 1974, 7
L.A.C. (2d) 182 (Beatty) to emphasize the need for reasonableness in
probationary terminations. In the Pamela case, the arbitrator supports the idea
that the employer had the discretion to terminate a probationary employee but
needed to do so on reasonable grounds.
The arbitrator also relied on the decision of the “Westfair Foods U.S. (the Real
Canadian Super Store) and United Food & Commercial Workers, Local 401, the
grievance of Manuel, March 4, 1991, Arbitrator Clarke" as setting a precedent
supporting the employer's position. This decision was used to argue that, without

24
an explicit provision in the Collective Agreement granting the right to union
representation during warnings or terminations, the grievor would not be entitled
to such representation. The arbitrator states that the Employer is not in violation of
the Collective Agreement in not having a Union Shop Steward or other
representative present during the termination by pointing out that termination does
not always take place in a meeting between the employee and the Employer since
there are many instances where termination is conveyed by means of a letter.
The Arbitrator relied on this case as a relevant precedent to support their
conclusion that no such right could be implied and, therefore, the Employer did
not violate the Collective Agreement by proceeding without a union representative
present during the disciplinary actions.
Page 6, Paragraph 72 - Arbitrator Vickers also referred to the frequently quoted
portion of the Porcupine Area Ambulance case which this Board adopts as well.
(Porcupine Area Ambulance Service 1974, 7 L.A.C. (2d) 182 (Beatty)). That
Section stated: although the proper basis for discharge of a probationary
employee may be somewhat broader than that justifying the termination of a
seniority-rated employee, and although the standards of review by Boards of
arbitration will be somewhat less vigorous, nevertheless the Employer must
affirmatively establish that his termination of a probationary employee was
reasonable in the circumstances".
Page 6, Paragraph 73 - It was common ground in all the cases submitted to us
that the probationary period is one which allows an Employer to judge whether
the probationary employee is suitable. It would go against common sense to say
that the Employer would need the same grounds for discharging

25
a probationary employee as they would for discharging one with established
seniority.
Page 7, Paragraph 81 - In the case before us, the only place within the Collective
Agreement "ere the right to have the presence of a Shop Steward is enshrined is
in Article 32.3 (a), set out above. In no other place in this Agreement between the
parties is the right set out. The Employer relied upon the decision of Westfair
Foods US (the Real Canadian Super Store) and United Food & Commercial
Workers, Local 401, the grievance of Manuel, March 4th, 1991, Arbitrator Clarke,
in support of their position that without this right explicitly contained in the
Collective Agreement, the grievor would not be entitled to such Union
representation.
Page 7, Paragraph 82 - Can such a right be implied? To go that far, we would be
inserting a provision within the Collective Agreement that the parties themselves
have not done. The Employer is not in violation of the Collective Agreement in not
having a Union Shop Steward or other representative present during either the
warning or the actual termination. It should also be pointed out that termination
does not always take place in a meeting between the employee and the
Employer. There are many instances where a termination is conveyed by means
of a letter.
Page 7, Paragraph 83 - Which brings us to the final question, whether the grievor
was entitled to discharge this probationary employee.
Page 7, Paragraph 84 - This Collective Agreement is silent as to the standards
that the Employer should look to when discharging a probationary employee. The

26
onus of justifying the discharge is upon the Employer, and we have already dealt
with the fact that the Employer, in exercising its discretion, must not act in any way
that would be construed as bad faith, arbitrariness, or discrimination, and, as
always, the William Scott case is helpful in going back to the basics. That is, had
the employee been given just and reasonable cause for this discipline, and if so,
was discharge an excessive response in all the circumstances of the case?
Page 7, Paragraph 85 - The Employer's standards may not have been as
precise, organized, or comprehensive as preferred, but the Board is satisfied that
their standards were adequate, and that these standards were communicated to
this grievor, on a number of occasions, by a number of her supervisors. It would
be too easy to say that she was sacrificing courtesy in consideration of customers
in her attempts to be nick at the cashier's post. But that seemed to be an element
of the problem. In any event, the Employer made a final assessment, after a
considerable amount of input from supervisors, that this employee was not
suitable for its organization, and that remains the right of this Employer,
particularly under this Collective Agreement.
Page 7, Paragraph 86 - Accordingly, the grievance is dismissed.
Similarities
Mr. Chair, this case is like ours in the following ways:
1. Probationary Employment: Both cases involve employees who were on
probationary periods at the time of their termination.

27
2. Termination During Probation: Both cases involve the termination of
employees during their probationary periods.
3. Employers Rights: In both cases, the employers retained the sole right to
decide whether to retain or terminate employees during the probationary
period.
4. Job Title: Both employees were working as cashiers.
5. Same Industry: Both companies are in the same retail industry.
6. Same Province: Both cases are in British Columbia
7. Union Involvement: In both cases, the unions grieved the terminations of
the employees.
8. Lack of Shop Steward Present: In both cases, there was no Shop
Steward or union representative present during the termination meetings.
9. Unsuitable for continued employment: Both grievors were not suitable
for continued employment according to their employers.
10. Attitude Issues: Both grievors had attitude issues with their customers.
11. Caution on Attitude: Both grievors were cautioned about their attitude
toward customers.
This case stands for the principle that any termination occurring during the
probationary period shall not be subject to grievance procedure.

28
Case #2
121 C.L.A.S. 34
British Columbia Safety Authority and BCGEU, Re
2014 CarswellBC 3374, [2014] B.C.W.L.D. 7960, [2014] B.C.W.L.D. 7967, [2014]
B.C.W.L.D. 7971, [2014] B.C.W.L.D. 7972, [2014] B.C.C.A.A.A. No. 122, [2015]
B.C.W.L.D. 3085, 121 C.L.A.S. 34, 250 L.A.C. (4th) 157
In the Matter of an Arbitration between British Columbia Safety Authority,
(the "Employer") and British Columbia Government and Service Employees'
Union, (the "Union")
John Kinzie Member
Heard: June 5, 6, 9, 10, 2014
Judgement: November 14, 2014
Docket: None given.
2. EMPLOYMENT STATUS ---Probationary termination— Discharge
Grievor discharged for poor performance and bad behaviour particularly in
handling the customers — Employers Discharge upheld — Grievance dismissed.
"And the arbitrator decided after considering all evidence and arguments, that the
griever’s persistent failure to maintain a consistently respectful and courteous
approach to clients justifiably led the employer to deem him unsuitable for

29
continued employment as an Electrical Safety Officer. Therefore, the employer
had the right to reject the griever during his probationary period and terminate his
employment. The decision-maker asserts that this action was not arbitrary,
discriminatory, or in bad faith. As a result, the grievance is dismissed.
Case #2 Citation and Summary
Mr. Chair, the British Columbia Safety Authority, and the British Columbia
Government and Service Employees Union case is a probationary termination
case that revolves around a grievance filed by Chris Cowan against his employer.
On August 7, 2013, the employer terminated Chris Cowan's employment as an
electrical safety officer. The employer claimed that Cowan was still in his
probationary period and was not suitable for continued employment based on
Article 10.5 of the collective agreement. In the termination letter, Cowan's
manager cited "unacceptable customer service" and an "overly authoritative
approach to clients."
The union, on the other hand, argued that Cowan was no longer in his
probationary period at the time of termination, as it had expired on August 4,
2013. They contended that Cowan's employment could only be terminated for just
and reasonable cause, not simply because the employer found him unsuitable.
The union asserted that the employer lacked just and reasonable cause for
Cowan's termination.
In this case, both parties presented further arguments. If the union was correct
about the probationary period's expiration, the employer argued that it had just

30
cause to terminate Cowan's employment based on his behavior. The union
contended that if Cowan was still in his probationary period, the employer's
conclusion about his suitability was not justified.
Additionally, the employer suggested that even if the ruling favored the union on
either basis, Cowan should not be reinstated as an electrical safety officer.
Instead, they proposed awarding him damages in lieu of reinstatement.
The background information reveals that the employer is responsible for safety
regulation in various technologies, including electrical systems. Safety officers
inspect work, educate clients and stakeholders, and aim to enhance safety
through cooperation rather than strict enforcement. The case includes incidents
where Cowan's interactions with clients raised concerns about his attitude and
professionalism. The employer's standards of conduct were cited, emphasizing
the need for courteous and professional service to the public.
Cowan, a trades-qualified electrician, joined the employer after running his own
electrical contracting business. He began working as an electrical safety officer in
November 2012, during his probationary period and received training alongside
experienced safety officers. During this time, there were multiple incidents where
Cowan's interactions with clients and contractors were questioned, leading to
complaints. The employer extended Cowan's probation period to allow him more
time to develop his people skills.
Positive feedback and interactions occurred after the extension, with no formal
complaints. However, the case took a turn when a homeowner, Pat Leask,

31
complained about Cowan's behavior during a meeting regarding electrical work.
Leask decided not to proceed with his permit and hired an electrical contractor
instead.
In this case, the arbitrator relied on the collective agreement between the union
and the employer, which included provisions related to representation rights,
probationary periods, and standards of conduct for employees. The arbitrator also
referenced previous incidents involving the grievor, warnings provided to the
grievor, and additional training received by the grievor as factors contributing to
their decision. The arbitrator used the following articles and paragraphs below to
reach their decision and the grievance was dismissed.
Page 3, Paragraph 2 (Article 10.5) states that the employer maintains the griever
was still in the probation period and concluded that he was not suitable for
continued employment, aligning with the employer's stance.
Page 12, Paragraph 55 references Article 10.5(a) of the Collective Agreement,
emphasizing that the test for just cause for rejection is the suitability of the
probationary employee for continued employment. This aligns with the employer's
assertion that the griever was not suitable for the position of Electrical Safety
Officer.
Page 15, Paragraph 76 refers to a decision from the Government of British
Columbia in 1991, stating that the onus is on the employer to establish just cause
for rejecting a probationary employee based on unsuitability. This supports the
employer's position that they need to demonstrate certain criteria to justify the
rejection.

32
Page 18, Paragraph 94 mentions the evolution of the impact of a potential breach
of Article 10.4, suggesting that historical precedents rendered the employer's
decision void ab initio, but this has changed over time. This evolution could imply
a more nuanced assessment, potentially giving the employer more leeway in
justifying disciplinary decisions.
Similarities
"Mr. Chair, this case is like our case in the following ways:
• Both employees were on probation
• They were both terminated during their probationary period.
• Both employees had attitude problems and were rude to their customers
• They were not suitable for continuous employment.
• In both cases, the employer has the full right to terminate the employment
of a probationary employee who does not meet the company’s standards
provided it does so on reasonable grounds.
• Both grievances were dismissed in favour of the employer.
This case stands for the principle that the employer has the right to reject the
probationary employee and terminate his employment if they do not meet the
employer's standard for continued employment.
Argument
The two cases are important to our case because the arbitrators dismissed the
grievance in favour of the employer. In the Pamala Manweiller case, the
arbitrators were in support of the Employer that there was no violation of the
Collective Agreement in not having a Union Shop Steward or other

33
representative present during the termination by pointing out that termination
does not always take place in a meeting between the employee and the
Employer because there are many instances where termination is conveyed by
means of a letter. Similarly, in Chris Cowan's case, the arbitrator supported the
employer relying on the collective agreement which gives the employer the
sole right to decide to reject the probationary employee and terminate his
employment if they do not meet the employer's standard for continued
employment. Both cases have significant reasons for our case because they
set a precedent for our case by emphasizing that during probationary periods,
the employer has the discretion to terminate a probationary employee but
needs to do so on reasonable grounds. It stands for the principle that any
termination occurring during the probationary period shall not be subject to
grievance. With the decision of the arbitrators, these cases are important to
support our case which is like them with the following key points and pieces of
evidence.
Key Points
1. Angela was rude to customers.
2. She called in sick three times without a doctor's/medical report.
3. Angela failed probation.
4. The Collective Agreement gives the employer the sole discretion to decide
whether to terminate or retain a probationary employee.
5. The employer does not need a shop steward to be present before
terminating a probationary employee according to Pamela Manweiller's
case.

34
6. Probationary termination is not subject to a grievance procedure.
7. Angela has undergone the customer orientation/cashier training.
8. Angela is aware of the company’s customer code of conduct and ethics.
9. She was cautioned about her unruly behaviour towards their customers.
Exhibits B and H are footage evidence captured from our store CCTV showing
when Angela was rude to our customers. This attitude has had an adverse effect
on our customers and has given our company a bad reputation. This violates our
professional ethics of respect and friendliness for our esteemed customers.
Exhibits C and I are customer complaint forms that account for Angela’s
rudeness to our customers. These complaint forms show customers' displeasure
with Angela’s behavior towards them.
Exhibit D is Angela's sick leave record which shows that Angela called in sick on
three occasions without a doctor’s report to prove she was not fit for duty and
required sick leave on those days.
Exhibit E is the company’s sick leave policy which Angela is fully aware of and
violated by not abiding by the policy.
The Collective Agreement Section 6.01 gives the employer the sole right to
terminate or retain a probationary employee. This shows that the employer did not
violate the collective agreement and was not discriminatory or unreasonable in
their decision to terminate Angela’s probationary employment.
Exhibit J is Angela’s evaluation which shows that she was cautioned about her
behaviour and sick leave violation against the company’s standard.

35
Exhibit K is Angela's second termination letter which shows that Angela did not
pass her probationary employment and was not suitable for continued
employment because of her rudeness to customers and sick leave without
medical certificates. Because of these reasons, she did not meet the company's
required standard for continued employment.
Exhibit L is the company’s customer code of conduct policy on how employees
should treat their customers. Angela appended her signature to show that she
was fully aware of this policy. This is one of the values of the organization in
treating customers with utmost respect and friendliness. In the event of any
misunderstanding, the employee should direct the customer to her supervisor.
Exhibit M is the customer orientation/training attendance list which shows that
Anagela was trained on how to interact with customers at the store.
Pamala Manweiller’s Case: The Westfair Foods Co. and UFCW, Local 777, Re
Pamala case page 7 paragraph 82 is evident that an employer does not need a
shop steward to be present before terminating a probationary employee because
there are many instances where a termination is conveyed by a means of a letter.
This case set a precedent for our case to prove that the Employer is not in
violation of the Collective Agreement for not having a Union Shop Steward or
other representative present during the termination and has the discretion to
terminate Angela’s probationary employment.
The Collective Agreement Section 6.01 also proves that when a probationary
employee's is terminated, it is not subject to a grievance procedure. In this case,

36
Mr. Chair, there was no cause for grievance as clearly stated in the Collective
agreement.
Remedy Sought
Because of this, Mr. Chair, we submit that you should dismiss Angela Chan’s
grievance and decide in favour of the employer.
BAMOS
1. Offering Angela, a severance package of one week’s pay and allowing her
to go.
2. Assistance with finding alternative employment as a gesture of goodwill for
her.
3. Providing an opportunity for Angela to address the performance issues and
undergo a one-week performance improvement program.
4. Reinstate Angela, no back pay and a new probationary period of two
months.

38
EXHIBIT B
Evidence Item: CCTV Footage
• Date: September 15, 2022
• Location: PSF Burnaby Branch
• Description: This CCTV footage captures events at the Burnaby Branch on
September 15, 2022. It is relevant to the case and provides visual evidence
regarding the complaint received on that date.

41
EXHIBIT E
PSF SICK LEAVE POLICY
Policy Number: 202102
Policy Effective Date: February 1, 2021
Policy Overview:
The Sick Leave Policy of PSF is designed to provide employees with the
necessary support and benefits when they are unable to work due to illness or
health-related issues. Sick leave is an important aspect of our commitment to the
well-being of our employees.
Sick Leave Entitlement:
Full-time employees are entitled to 10 paid sick days per year.
Part-time employees are entitled to sick leave on a pro-rata basis, depending on
their scheduled hours.
Sick Leave Documentation:
Employees are required to inform their immediate supervisor or manager of their
illness as soon as possible. This notification should preferably be made before the
employee's scheduled shift. All employees must provide medical certificates for
documentation from a medical doctor or healthcare practitioner.
Usage of Sick Leave:
Sick leave can be used for the following purposes:
1. Personal illness or injury.
2. Medical appointments that cannot be scheduled outside of working hours.
3. Caring for an ill family member.

42
Notification Procedure:
Employees should notify their supervisor or manager using the company's
designated sick leave notification process. Failure to do so may result in unpaid
leave or other consequences as outlined in the company's policies.
Approval Process:
Sick leave requests will be reviewed and approved by the immediate supervisor or
manager. HR may also be involved in the approval process.
Return to Work:
Employees are expected to notify their supervisor or manager when they are fit to
return to work. A return-to-work interview may be conducted in some cases to
ensure a smooth transition back to the workplace.
Policy Disclaimer:
This policy is subject to change and should be reviewed periodically by
employees to stay informed of any updates or revisions.

45
EXHIBIT H
Evidence Item: CCTV Footage
• Date: November 5, 2022
• Location: PSF Burnaby Branch
• Description: This CCTV footage captures events at the Burnaby Branch on
November 5, 2022. It is relevant to the case and provides visual evidence
regarding the complaint received on that date.

53
24 C.L.A.S. 140
Westfair Foods Co. and UFCW, Local 777, Re
1991 CarswellBC 3157, 24 C.L.A.S. 140
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: WESTFAIR FOODS MD.,
EMPLOYER AND: THE UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS, LOCAL NO.
777 UNION Grievance of PAMELA MANWEILLER
majority: Morrison, Checov and dissent: Smith
Judgment: June 13, 1991
Docket: None given.
Counsel: for THE EMPLOYER TERRY WOLFE
for THE UNION HUGH FINNAMORE
Subject: Labour; Public
EMPLOYMENT STATUS --- Probationary employees — Discharge
Grievor discharged for attitude problem particularly discourteous handling of customers —
Standards adequately conveyed and grievor previously warned — Discharge upheld
— Grievance dismissed.
DISCIPLINARY ACTION --- Procedural requirements — Union representation
Collective agreement does not confer right to representation in circumstances of either verbal
reprimand or termination — Verbal warning and discharge of probationary employee
procedurally sound — Grievance dismissed on merits (22 pp.).
Decision of the Board:
Discharge of Probationary Employee
1 This grievance involves the termination of a probationary part-time employee, Pamela
Manweiller, from a retail food store owned and operated by Westfair Foods Md.
2 Westfair Foods Ltd. owns a series of retail food stores, Mown as the Real Canadian Super
Stores. They presently have five of these stores in the Lower Mainland.
3 The grievor was being trained as a cashier in the spring of 1990, and-was still in
her probationary period on July 12th, 1990, when an incident occurred which amounted to an
culminating incident in the eyes of the Employer. Following the incident of July 12th, 1990, the
grievor was terminated, and the union now grieves that termination.
4 According to the Employer, the grievor was terminated because she had an attitude problem,
particularly as it concerned customers. The Union alleges that the Company did not have just
cause to terminate the grievor, and further that the grievance procedure was fatally flawed. That
flaw was that the Union Shop Steward, or another representative from the Union was not made
available to the grievor at the time of termination.
5 There has also been the issue raised of a verbal warning given to the grievor prior to the time
of the incident of July 12th, 1990. There was an earlier incident that occurred May 11th, 1990
followed by a verbal warning on May 25th, 1990. No one from the Union, Shop Steward or

54
otherwise, was present with the grievor at the time she was given a verbal warning by the
Supervisor.
6 The evidence commenced with Alva St. John, the Industrial Relations Manager for the
Employer. She testified with regard to the policies concerning Article 32.3 of the Collective
Agreement between the parties. Article 32.3 is as follows:
"32.3 Reprimands and Security checks.
(a) A written reprimand or a warning letter shall not be given to an employee except in the
presence of the shop steward, or in his absence, another member of the bargaining 'unit, selected
by the employee.
Employees may request their right to the presence of a shop steward or in his absence, another
member of the bargaining unit as selected by the employee during a random security check of
bags, purses and parcels.
If the steward or another member of the A bargaining unit is present during a reprimand, warning
letter or security check, he may advise the employee."
7 It is the policy of the Employer that where a verbal warning is given, there is no requirement
to have a shop steward present. Ms. St. John testified that there had been a number of
other terminations, and where the Company had acted under Article 32.3, no shop steward had
been present, and there have been no complaints by the Union.
8 Under cross-examination, Ms. St. John confirmed that Westfair did not notify the Union of
every disciplinary termination, and that the Union would not know of a termination unless the
employee came and lodged a grievance.
9 Each store has employees which normally number 420 to 460, and could number up to 600
at times in any individual store. Ms. St. John testified that she had initialled a memorandum stating
that there should always be a witness at disciplinary hearings. The Union did not get written notice
of that policy.
10 There are apparently no written policies with regard to employees and customer relations,
and no training or orientation for new employees that Ms. St. John knew about in the area of
customer relations. Ms. St. John is not involved with employee training in the departments. She
deals with recruiting for the stores. As to termination, there was testimony it should not be
determined by a supervisor without the consent of the manager who, in turn, would normally
consult with the industrial Relations Department.
11 Ms. St. John did not f eel it was necessary to issue policies when matters were clearly set
out in the Collective Agreement.
12 The Employer contends Supervisors are free to reprimand employees, either venally or by
written reprimands, but after that, policy would have the supervisor consult with the manager and
the Industrial Relations Department. The supervisors are assisted in the interpretation of the
Collective Agreement by their Managers and the Industrial Relations Department.
13 A verbal warning is written out on a piece of paper, a multi use form. It is written for the
supervisor, and appears to be a memorandum of the incident for the file. - According to Ms. St.
John, she has never instructed the supervisor to have an employee sign this form which sets out
the verbal reprimand, although she acknowledged it might happen.
14 The next witness was Owen Komanchuk, the front end supervisor at the Marine Drive store,
in charge of a number of departments, including cashiers, customer services, etc. The largest
segment within his jurisdiction would appear to be the cashiers.

55
15 Mr. Komanchuk had five years previous experience in Edmonton with the Employer. He had
an induction meeting with Bruce Kent, the Industrial Relations Manager who was the main
negotiator for the Employer with regard to this relatively new Collective Agreement. Mr.
Komanchuk testified that he would have the freedom to handle all probationary employees with
regard to discipline. if there was an area of uncertainty, they would call the Industrial Relations
Department; otherwise, they would handle it themselves.
16 Mr. Komanchuk previously has terminated a number of employees at the Marine Drive
store, and at no time has there been a shop steward present. His procedure would be first to give
a verbal warning, and to advise the employee that it a serious incident were to occur again, it could
mean their job.
17 Mr. Komanchuk and the other witnesses for the Employer stressed time and again a very
high emphasis is placed on customer relations, that this was one of the main objectives within the
highly competitive market of these Super Stores. They all stressed the importance of handling the
customer well, and the fact that it was not unusual for some customers to become quite ugly, and
difficult to handle.
18 The suggested way of handling difficult customers was to call a supervisor if the employee
could not calm the customer immediately themselves.
19 Testifying for the Employer was the head cashier, Shindy Randhawa. She is responsible for
the training of the new cashiers, including the grievor. Mr. Komanchuk stressed his reliance upon
Ms. Randhawa, his most senior cashier.
20 Placed into evidence was a sheet containing trainers' comments under such headings as
Progress, Attitude, Grooming, Punctuality, Follows instructions, Ability to Cope with Stress, and
Other. The sheet concerning the grievor contained Shindy Randhawa's comments in her role as a
trainer.
21 Of the five sessions listed within the document entitled Trainers' Comments on the grievor,
Ms. Randhawa was the trainer for the first four sessions. Her comments with regard to the grievor
ere not glowing. Under Progress, there were the following notations: "Problems, counting change,
entering random UPC; voiding wt. items, problems with change, US money, travellers."
22 Under Attitude, Sessions and 2 indicated that the grievor was "outspoken". Sessions 3 and 4
stated, "continued Poor attitude". Under Session 5, with a different supervisor, both Progress and
Attitude indicated "Fair" with a further comment, "Needs to be more willing to listen and accept
advice from trainer".
23 Grooming and Punctuality with regard to the grievor were good, but under the heading
"Follows Instructions", were the comments: "Constantly questioning "at taught to what was in the
manual". and "Fair plus minus needs to pay closer attention in class and to review I.D. manual."
24 There were no comments under Ability to Cope with Stress heading, but under "Other", the
following comments appeared: "Almost assumes she thinks that she already knows material and it
is a waste of time to have to listen to us" and further, "See comments on follows instructions +
attitude".
25 The negative comments in that Exhibit were confirmed by the evidence of Shindy Randhawa
and also by the evidence of Mr. Komanchuk.
26 With regard to the training period, Ms. Randhawa would update Mr. Komanchuk, and
mentioned the grievor's attitude more than once.
27 But what really concerned the Employer were two incidents involving irate customers and
the grievor.

56
28 If a cashier runs into trouble on the floor, she is to call one of the supervisors. Mr.
Komanchuk has three assistants, Marina Grandinetti, Amar Sandhu, and Diane Garcia, who fulfill
the function of such supervisors. All three had advised Mr. Komenchuk of problems with the
grievor.
29 Mr. Komanchuk's first real contact with the grievor came at the time of a verbal warning.
That warning arose out of an incident that occurred on Friday, May 11th, 1990. Exhibit 4 was
placed into evidence by the Employer, and it is set out in its entirety as follows:
"Friday, May 11th, 1990
Bill Simons, approached me; and gave me information on one of our cashiers, Pamela.
Two customers proceeded through her lane and tried to purchase two cartons of milk at the sale
price - she then informed them that they could only receive one at the sale price. The customer
agreed and proceeded to pack their groceries. Customer then asked for some paper towel to wipe
up some poultry juice; she told them to go to the end of the till and get a bag, in an unfriendly
voice.
M.A. Grandinette and Bill Simons"
30 Owen Komanchuk had been away from the office, and did not call the grievor into his office
until May 25th, 1990, when he gave her a verbal warning. He testified he called the grievor in to
discuss the incident with her, and he wanted to hear her version. It has been his experience that
once a customer goes out of their way to call the store with a complaint, that there is a serious
problem. He stated that he advised the grievor that if she had another customer problem, it could
result in her termination.
31 At that time, Owen Komanchuk filled out an Employee Discipline Form dated May 25th,
1990 indicating that it was a verbal warning. His notation on that Form indicated that the grievor
was not suspended, and she was cautioned that a future offence would result in suspension
or termination. The form had the words: "Pamela was warned that she must hand customers in a
friendly and courteous manner in all circumstances. Any further customer complaint will result in
further disciplinary action or possible termination."
32 That Form was placed in evidence. It was signed by Owen Komanchuk, but was not signed
or witnessed by the grievor or anyone else. Mr. Komanchuk testified that he usually filled the Form
in the presence of the employee, but would not necessarily show the employee the form. He said
that he told her everything that was in the statement. No representation from the Union was
present.
33 Mr. Komanchuk then related what -he referred to as a major incident that occurred in mid
July. The supervisors advised him that the grievor had closed down her lane, and there was a very
unhappy customer as a result. The customer advised management that he had waited in the
grievor's lane 15 to 20 minutes, and that the store was too busy to shut a lane down. The customer
went to find a supervisor, and a different lane was found for him, the grievor's lane having shut by
this time.
34 The policy of the store is to have the supervisors close down the lanes, but it would appear
that the practise is often breached.
35 It was after this last incident that the grievor was terminated.
36 The decision was made by Owen Komanchuk. The problems with the grievor, according to
the Employer, lay not so much in her other performance, but primarily with her general attitude and
her interaction with customers.
37 Dealing with the final incident. before discharge, both the grievor and Mar Sandhu, an
Assistant Front-end Supervisor with the Employer, testified that following the irate customer

57
complaining because the lane had been shut down, another customer said that the first customer
had not been in the grievor's lane.
38 Amar Sandhu is one of the Assistant Supervisors who had spoken to Owen Komanchuk,
and had advised him previously that, in her opinion, the grievor was not up to their standards.
39 In relating the incident of July 12th, the final incident, Ms. Sandhu, confirmed that she had
two customers who were very upset. The first customer with a cart half full of groceries,
complaining that he had been in the line only to have it close before he could go through, and the
second customer who was upset with customer number one. Ms. Sandhu stated that the grievor
did not want to be there, that she wanted to get out, and that she stated she had another life. Me.
Sandhu had been the one to ask everyone if they could stay later that evening, and the grievor
had said that she was never asked. There was some Conflict as to how long the grievor had
indicated she would be able to stay.
40 In testifying on her own behalf, the grievor outlined contradictory instructions she had with
regard to We dress code, and different procedures that were being taught, as opposed to those
contained in the IBM manuals provided. In questioning the discrepancies, the grievor said that she
was more or less confirming those differences for her own purposes. The grievor also testified that
she was never told that anything was wrong with her attitude during the training period.,
41 The grievor is obviously bright, unafraid to speak out, and the Board was left with the
impression- that she had a quickness that the Employer initially found attractive with respect to the
work of a cashier in such a busy store.
42 The grievor's testimony seemed to confirm that most of the training was on the job, and
while the supervisors were confirming amongst themselves that the grievor had a continued poor
attitude, it does not appear that the grievor was advised of this.
43 With regard to testimony that* the grievor had ignored one of her Assistant Supervisors
when being instructed at the cash register, Ms. Manweiller said that this was not true. Shindy
Randhawa had told her that she should not guess on the produce codes. The grievor apparently
did not answer, and Ms. Randhawa had walked away. She then later spoke to the grievor again
with regard to this, at the end of her shift, advising the grievor that she would have to quit guessing
on her produce codes, that it would confuse the customers, and that she would have to keep
voiding the bill.
44 Her testimony with regard to the incident of chicken dripping on to the counter was that she
was serving one customer, and the next customer coming up said that her chicken was dripping,
and could she have a bag. The grievor said she pointed to the end of the counter and the
customer got her own bag. When that same customer went through the cashier station, she had a
second bottle of milk which was not at the sale price, the sale being only one per family at the sale
price.' The husband of the customer wanted to be the second customer, and the grievor told him
that it was one per family. She testified that the man walked off grumbling.
45 Men asked why she did not have any bags in her immediate area, the grievor said there was
not much space, and a lot of people reject items if they are over their budget. She reminded us
that the cashiers do not bag the items, the customers do that themselves.
46 When Cindy talked to the grievor with regard to the dripping chicken incident, the grievor
advised her that the customer was mostly upset because of the two milks not being sold at the
sale price.
47 The grievor confirmed that if a customer caused a lot of trouble, they were supposed to call
a supervisor.
48 When, approximately two weeks later, she was called into Owen Komanchuk's office with
regard to that incident, she said that Komanchuk told her that she would have to understand his

58
position, that this was being treated very seriously, and that he was not taking her side. He also
advised her that he had had some complaints from supervisors. She said she did not know what
complaints those were. She also testified that Komanchuk did not tell her how to improve her work
performance or how to improve in the future. She said Mat no one had worked with her to improve
her work performance.
49 She was told by more than one employee that she was very fast at ringing up items.
50 At the time of the verbal warning,, the grievor stated that she had never been told that she
would be terminated or suspended. She was told that if there was' another complaint, "further
action would be taken". She did not grieve the verbal reprimand, because she thought that as
a probationary employee, there would be no help f rom the Union until she had passed
the probationary period.
51 With regard to the closing down of her till, at the end of every shift, the grievor confirmed that
a supervisor was to come and close off the till. However, she said that many times, a supervisor
would not come. Many employees closed themselves off. otherwise, she said you would be stuck
there until the store closed. She also said that you were paid only if you took your own time to find
an Assistant Supervisor and note the times.
52 The grievor said that she had closed herself off at least 20 times, and never closed off early.
She would usually wait until a couple of minutes before 9:15, and if there was no supervisor, Men
she would close herself off. This is done by telling the last customer, no more, and telling any new
customers that might show up that the aisle is closed. You then put the chain up as soon as you
can. She usually put the chain up herself.
53 With regard to the final incident, the grievor said that Amar Sandhu never asked her to stay
late. She gets a ride to and from work, and she stated that she would never do anything unplanned
without calling her husband. She further said that the irate customer had never been in her lane at
all.
54 When she was being terminated, Mr. Komanchuk asked her if she thought that she was
rude to customers, and she replied no. Nothing was said to her with regard to produce codes at
the time of her firing. The grievor testified that she dealt with customers in a straight forward
manner, and when closing, said, I'm sorry, I'm closed.
55 When asked if she was aware how important it was to be friendly to customers, the grievor
testified that she was, fully aware. She also said that this had not been stressed in training
sessions, and perhaps had been mentioned about twice. She said she was not aware of the
intense competition market in the area of the stores.
56 When asked about guessing on the produce codes, she said it occurred to her not to guess,
but many times, she said she went to look for the appropriate codes, and could not find them.
57 There was a gritty independence about the grievor, both in her demeanour at the hearing
and in her testifying. But that same independence noted at the hearing could account in part for
what the Employer perceived as an attitude problem. The ability to deal with customers, difficult
ones and otherwise, was something the Employer needed, and found lacking in this grievor.
58 In wanting to be and to appear to be quick and competent in the job, the grievor may have
been overlooking other matters that the Employer felt were important. For example, guessing at
produce codes. The grievor testified that the guessing on codes had become a habit. She said she
may have said it was faster than looking it up on roll cards, but that she did not say it was a waste
of time. Nor did she think she said it was simpler. In the opinion of the grievor, it was more a waste
of company time. She said testified that it 'was not a waste of time to look things up on a chart that
was well organized. She obviously felt that the company charts were not well organized, and she
had mentioned that to her supervisors, this lacking of organization. She said she found it very time
consuming to check the chart. "If I knew it was one of two things, I would guess". She also said

59
that most of the time, people in the lines were not very pleasant, or in good moods, looking at their
watches, etc. She felt that it was important to get them through quickly.
59 At one point the grievor was asked what she would do if a customer was rude to her, and it
was suggested she would be rude right back to him. In her testimony, the grievor said that she had
said something similar to that. She had been told to try and deal with the problem, but if it passed
a certain point, and got serious, she would call a supervisor. She also said that everyone has their
own opinion at what point it would become serious.
60 When Mr. Komanchuk had asked the grievor if she thought she was rude to a customer, she
said absolutely not. If being nice failed, then she said she would be straight forward. She felt that
by being straight forward to customers, she was not being rude- to a customer.
61 There seemed to be a genuine and unfortunate lack of communication at times between
management and this probationary employee. Management had some serious concerns, almost
from day one of her employment, but the evidence revealed a discrepancy as to when, what, and
how often the grievor was advised of these problems.
62 There are two Articles in the Collective Agreement between these parties which apply
to probationary employees in this situation. They are Articles 31.1 and 32.2. They are set out as
follows:
"Article 31 Seniority
31.1 Seniority shall mean the length of continuous service with the Employer in classifications with
the seniority group covered by this United Food and Commercial Workers Local 777, Collective
Agreement. New employees hired during the first six months after the opening of a new stores
shall have a probationary period of three hundred and sixty (360) hours worked. Employees hired
after the first six months shall have a probationary period of two hundred and forty (240) hours
worked. During this probation period, new employees may be discharged by the Employer at its
discretion, without recourse to the grievance or arbitration sections of this agreement. Upon
completion of We probationary period, seniority shall then be established retroactive to the
commencement of employment.
32.2 Grievances must be submitted to the Employer, in writing, not later than fourteen (14)
working days from the event giving rise to the grievance, or within ten (10) working days of
the termination or it shall be waived by the aggrieved party."
63 Also to be considered is Section 93 (1) of the Industrial Act of British Columbia, R.S.B.C. Ch.
212. That Section provides:
9 3. (1) Every collective agreement shall contain a provision governing dismissal or discipline of
an employee bound by the agreement, and that or another provision shall require that the
employer have a just and reasonable cause for dismissal or discipline of an employee; but this
section shall not prohibit the parties to a collective agreement from including in it a different
provision for employment of certain employees on a probationary basis.'
64 It is generally agreed that Me portion of Article 31.1 of the Collective Agreement which
stipulates that new employees may be discharged by the Employer "without recourse to
the grievance or arbitration sections of this- agreement" runs contrary to the law established in the
Cassiar Asbestos case, which established that parties to a Collective Agreement cannot agree to
preclude absolutely access to arbitration (Cassiar Asbestos Corp. Ltd. (1975) 10 L.A.C.(2d) 1.
65 The Union argued the entire clause, 31.1 should fail with regard
to probationary employees, while the Employer argued that severance of the illegal portion of the
clause was the appropriate way to deal with the Article. The legality of the rest of the Article would
remain intact.

60
66 The Board agrees that severance is appropriate, and the balance of Article 31.1 remains,
allowing probationary employees to be discharged by the Employer at its discretion. However,
there may well be limits on what discretion may be.
67 Section 93 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act allows the parties to include their own
provisions with regard to probationary employees. And in this Collective Agreement, they have
done so. Article 31.1, minus the portion that refers to no recourse to the grievance or arbitration
sections of the Agreement, would remain consistent with Section 93 (1) of the Industrial Relations
Act.
68 As for the discretion portion of 31.1, the Employer has argued that the Employer can
discharge for any reason whatsoever. They also pointed to other provisions within the Collective
Agreement giving the Employer complete discretion, for example, leaves of absence.
69 Counsel for the Employer agreed that the exercise of the discretion would be subject to the
Employer exercising their rights in a good faith manner. The Union had argued that the Employer,
in exercising its discretion, had acted in bad faith, with discrimination, and arbitrariness. The onus
is on the Employer to prove that the discharge was for a just cause, but conversely, the onus is on
the Union to prove that the Employer had acted with bad faith, discrimination, or arbitrariness. The
Union further argued that the evidence did not indicate that standards or anything similar were
given to this employee. There was no evidence of ample direction to her. The "operation friendly
group" that had been referred to by the Employer had never approached or assisted this grievor.
Finally, the grievor had not been given an opportunity to meet the standards of the Employer.
70 The Union referred to the case of Arbitrator David Vickers in Westgair Foods Ltd. (the Real
Canadian Super Store) and United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Loc.
777, grievance of Wendy Hallock, "gust 30th, 1990.
71 In that case, Arbitrator Vickers referred to a number of tests in dealing
with dismissal of probationary employees.
72 Arbitrator Vickers also referred to the frequently quoted portion of the Porcupine Area
Ambulance case which this Board adopts as well. (Porcupine Area Ambulance Service1974, 7
L.A.C. (2d) 182 (Beatty)). That Section stated:
although the proper basis for discharge of a probationary employee may be somewhat broader
then that justifying the termination of a seniority-rated employee, and although the standards of
review by Boards of arbitration will be somewhat less vigorous, nevertheless the Employer must
affirmatively establish that his termination of a probationary employee was reasonable in the
circumstances".
73 It was common ground in all the cases submitted to us that the probationary period is one
which allows an Employer to judge whether the probationary employee is suitable. It would go
against common sense to say that the Employer would need the same grounds for discharging
a probationary employee as they would for discharging one with established seniority.
74 The Union has argued that standards were not conveyed to this grievor, that she was not
given proper direction and an opportunity to meet those standards. Also that the evaluation was
not carried out properly of the grievor, in addition to the lack of good faith, and the presence of
arbitrariness and discrimination.
75 While the Board had some concerns as to the thoroughness and lack of sophistication of
some of the personnel practices of the Employer, we find ourselves unable to agree to this portion
of the Union's argument. It may well have been more beneficial to both this employee and the
Employer to have more sophisticated guidance when she was hired; and possibly prior to hiring, a
more adequate selection and testing process, and a more defined evaluation process throughout
the probationary period. However, we find ourselves in the same position as Arbitrator Vickers did

61
in the Hallock grievance, where he stated that he did not "go so far as to find that the Employer's
assessment was so flawed as to characterize it as arbitrary or unreasonable".
76 Another important argument by the Union was that this grievor had a substantive right, that
of all employees, to have a Shop Steward or other union representative present when she was
warned, and also when she was fired.
77 Article 32. 3 (a) stipulates that a written reprimand or a warning letter cannot be given to an
employee except in the presence of a Shop Stewart, or another member of the Bargaining Unit.
That section was set out at the beginning of this Award.
78 The Union's concern was that no Union representative was present when the verbal warning
was given to the grievor on May 25th, and similarly, when she was called in and terminated, again
no union representative was present.
79 Counsel for the Union referred to a number of cases in support of his argument,
including Re General Coach Division of Citair Inc. and United Brotherhood of carpenters &
Joiners, Local 3054, 35 L.A.C. (3d) 235; re Saville Food Products Inc. and United Food &
Commercial Workers, Local 1105; 20 L.A.C. (3d) 114; Re Hickeson-Langs Supply Co. and
Teamsters Union, Local 419, 19 L.A.C. (3d) 379; Re Glengarry memorial Hospital and Canadian
Union of Public Employees, 11 L.A.C. (4th) 325; Re Glendale Spinning Mills (1981) Ltd. and
Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers Union. Local 1070, 1 L.A.C. (4th) 353.
80 Those cases all talk about the desirability of having a Union Steward present during the time
of such discipline, pointing out that an employee may well need assistance at such a time, and
also pointing out the essential or basic fairness of such a situation. However, in some of these
cases, the right to Union representation in such circumstances had been negotiated.
81 In the case before us, the only place within the Collective Agreement "ere the right to have
the presence of a Shop Steward is enshrined is in Article 32.3 (a), set out above. In no other place
in this Agreement between the parties is the right set out. The Employer relied upon the decision
of Westfair Foods US (the Real Canadian Super Store) and United Food & Commercial Workers,
Local 401, the grievance of Manuel, March 4th, 1991, Arbitrator Clarke, in support of their position
that without this right explicitly contained in the Collective Agreement, the grievor would not be
entitled to such Union representation.
82 Can such a right be implied? To go that far, we would be inserting a provision within the
Collective Agreement that the parties themselves have not done. The Employer is not in violation
of the Collective Agreement in not having a Union Shop Steward or other representative present
during either the warning or the actual termination. It should also be pointed out
that termination does not always take place in a meeting between the employee and the
Employer. There are many instances where a termination is conveyed by means of a letter.
83 Which brings us to the final question, whether the grievor was entitled to discharge
this probationary employee.
84 This Collective Agreement is silent as to the standards that the Employer should look to
when discharging a probationary employee. The onus of justifying the discharge is upon the
Employer, and we have already dealt with the fact that the Employer, in exercising its discretion,
must not act in any way that would be construed as bad faith, arbitrariness, or discrimination, and,
as always the William Scott case is helpful in going back to the basics. That is, had the employee
been given just and reasonable cause for this discipline, and if so, was discharge an excessive
response in all the circumstances of the case?
85 The Employer's standards may not have been as precise, organized or comprehensive as
preferred, but the Board is satisfied that their standards were adequate, and that these standards
were communicated to this grievor, on a number of occasions, by a number of her supervisors. It
would be too easy to say that she was sacrificing courtesy in consideration of customers in her

62
attempts to be nick at the cashier's post. But that seemed to be an element of the problem. In any
event, the Employer made a final assessment, after a considerable amount of input from
supervisors, that this employee was not suitable to its organization, and that remains the right of
this Employer, particularly under this Collective Agreement.
86 Accordingly, the grievance is dismissed.
87 The Board is grateful to both Counsel for their careful presentation of the case and their
helpful analysis of relevant authorities.
Signed: NANCY MORRISON, Q. C.
Signed: Dr. Louis Chevoc

63
2014 CarswellBC 3374
British Columbia Safety Authority and BCGEU, Re
2014 CarswellBC 3374, [2014] B.C.W.L.D. 7960, [2014] B.C.W.L.D. 7967, [2014] B.C.W.L.D. 7971,
[2014] B.C.W.L.D. 7972, [2014] B.C.C.A.A.A. No. 122, [2015] B.C.W.L.D. 3085, 121 C.L.A.S. 34,
250 L.A.C. (4th) 157
In the Matter of an Arbitration between British Columbia Safety Authority, (the
"Employer") and British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union, (the
"Union")
John Kinzie Member
Heard: June 5, 6, 9, 10, 2014
Judgment: November 14, 2014
Docket: None given.
Counsel: Taryn Mackie, Katherine Cobban, for Employer
Mike Fenton, for Union
Subject: Public; Labour
Related Abridgment ClassificationsCollapse
Labour and employment law
I Labour law
I.6 Collective agreement
I.6.j Employee status
I.6.j.iii Probationary employees
I.6.j.iii.B What constituting probation period
I Labour law
I.10 Discipline and termination
I.10.a Grounds

64
I.10.a.i Work performance
I.10.a.i.A Incompetence
I.10.a.i.A.5 Probationary employees
I Labour law
I.10.c Factors considered
I.10.c.xii Class of employee
I.10.c.xii.B Probationary employee
I Labour law
I.10.d Kinds of discipline
I.10.d.v Discharge
I.10.d.v.B Just cause
HeadnoteCollapse
Labour and employment law --- Labour law — Discipline and termination — Grounds —
Work performance — Incompetence — Probationary employees
Grievor was employed as electrical safety officer by provincial safety authority — Employer
decided to dismiss grievor, probationary employee, due to ongoing customer service issues —
Union requested adjournment of grievor's termination meeting, but never advised employer it was
taking position adjournment would take grievor outside his probationary period — Grievor was
dismissed — Union brought grievance alleging unjust termination — Union submitted grievor's
probationary period expired three days prior to termination — Grievance dismissed — Grievor's
employment was terminated while grievor was still probationary — Final complaint against grievor
reflected same aggressive, insensitive and discourteous responses from grievor as were present
in earlier complaints — Grievor's continued inability to maintain consistent respectful and
courteous approach to clients justified employer's conclusion grievor would not be suitable for
continued employment.

65
Labour and employment law --- Labour law — Discipline and termination — Factors
considered — Class of employee — Probationary employee
Employer decided to dismiss grievor, who was probationary employee, on August 2nd — Employer
and grievor arranged to meet on August 6th, but grievor rescheduled meeting to August 7th so
union representative could attend — Grievor was dismissed at August 7th meeting — Grievor
grieved dismissal, alleging he was dismissed outside probation period — Grievance dismissed —
On strict application of s. 25(2) of Interpretation Act, grievor was outside probationary period by
August 7th — However, adjournment happened as result of grievor's and union's request —
Having not mentioned that they would take position that grievor's probationary period had passed
if meeting was adjourned to August 7th, it would be unfair to permit them to do so now — Union
estopped from taking position — Grievor's employment was terminated within probationary period
— "Suitability for continued employment" standard applied in respect of review of validity of
decision — Grievor's continued inability to maintain consistent respectful and courteous approach
to clients justified employer's conclusion grievor would not be suitable for continued employment
— Grievor was provided with fair opportunity to prove his ability and with fair assessment of that
ability by employer.
Labour and employment law --- Labour law — Discipline and termination — Kinds of
discipline — Discharge — Just cause
and grievor arranged to meet on August 6th — Grievor and union rescheduled meeting to August
7th so union representative could attend — Grievor was dismissed at August 7th meeting —
Grievor grieved his dismissal — Grievance dismissed — On strict application of s. 25(2) of
Interpretation Act, grievor was no longer within probationary period by August 7th — However,
adjournment to August 7th happened as result of grievor's and union's request — Having not
mentioned that they would take position that grievor's probationary period had passed if meeting
was adjourned to August 7th, it would be unfair to permit them to do so now — Grievor was
dismissed within probationary period — "Suitability for continued employment" standard applied in
respect of review of validity of decision — Final complaint against grievor reflected same
aggressive, insensitive and discourteous responses from grievor as were present in earlier
complaints — Grievor's continued inability to maintain consistent respectful and courteous
approach to clients justified employer's conclusion grievor would not be suitable for continued
employment — Employer's decision was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.
Labour and employment law --- Labour law — Collective agreement — Employee status —
Probationary employees — What constituting probation period

66
and grievor arranged to meet on August 6th — Grievor and union rescheduled meeting to August
7th so union representative could attend — Grievor was dismissed at August 7th meeting —
Grievor grieved his dismissal, alleging he was dismissed outside probation period — Grievance
dismissed — Absent express guidance in collective agreement as to how time should be
calculated, it was reasonable to use general rules in Interpretation Act to do so — On strict
application of s. 25(2) of Act, grievor was no longer within probationary period by August 7th —
However, adjournment to August 7th happened as result of grievor's and union's request — Having
not mentioned that they would take position that grievor's probationary period had passed if
meeting was adjourned to August 7th, it would be unfair to permit them to do so now — Union was
estopped from taking position that rescheduling of meeting meant that grievor was no longer within
probationary period.
Table of AuthoritiesCollapse
Cases considered by John Kinzie Member:
British Columbia and B.C.G.E.U., Re (1990), 1990 CarswellBC 2400 (B.C. Arb.) — followed
British Columbia (Justice Institute) v. B.C.G.E.U. (1991), 1991 CarswellBC 2224, 21 L.A.C. (4th)
256 (B.C. Arb.) — followed
British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. B.C.G.E.U. (1995), 27
C.L.R.B.R. (2d) 161, 1995 CarswellBC 3881, 95 C.L.L.C. 220-060 (B.C. L.R.B.) — referred to
Ksan House Society and B.C.G.E.U., Local 312, Re (1999), 1999 CarswellBC 3827 (B.C. Arb.) —
referred to
Nanaimo (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 401 (1980), 1980 CarswellBC 982, 25 L.A.C. (2d) 34 (B.C. Arb.)
— considered
NCR Canada Ltd. and IBEW, Local 213, Re (2005), 2005 CarswellBC 3985 (B.C. Arb.) — referred
to
Revelstoke (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 363 (1981), [1981] 5 W.L.A.C. 110, 26 L.A.C. (2d) 292, 1981
CarswellBC 1191 (B.C. Arb.) — considered
Tofino General Hospital and H.S.A.B.C., Re (1996), 1996 CarswellBC 3303 (B.C. Arb.) — referred
to
William Scott & Co. v. C.F.A.W., Local P-162 (1976), [1977] 1 Can. L.R.B.R. 1, [1976] 2 W.L.A.C.
585, 1976 CarswellBC 518 (B.C. L.R.B.) — considered
Statutes considered:

67
Interpretation Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 206
Generally — referred to
Interpretation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 238
s. 25 — considered
s. 25(2) — considered
s. 25(3) — considered
s. 29 — considered
Labour Relations Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 244
INDIVIDUAL GRIEVANCE alleging unjust termination.
John Kinzie Member:
I
1 This proceeding is concerned with the grievance of Chris Cowan against the Employer's
decision on August 7, 2013 to terminate his employment with it as an electrical safety officer.
2 The Employer maintains the grievor was still in his probation period at the time of the
termination of his employment and it concluded that he was not suitable for continued employment
with it as an electrical safety officer in accordance with the requirements specified in Article 10.5 of
the collective agreement. In his letter to the grievor dated August 7, 2013 confirming the
termination of his employment, Trent Wagner, the Regional Business Leader for Vancouver Island
and the grievor's manager, referred to his "unacceptable customer service and your overly
authoritative approach to clients that made them feel disrespected."
3 In support of the grievance, the Union contends that the grievor was not on probation when
the Employer terminated his employment on August 7, 2013. It submits that the grievor's
probationary period expired on August 4, 2013. Thus, it says, the grievor was a regular employee
at the time of his dismissal and accordingly, his employment could only be terminated for just and
reasonable cause, not simply because he might be not suitable for continued employment in the
mind of the Employer. The Union maintains that the Employer did not have just and reasonable
cause to terminate the grievor's employment.

68
4 In the alternative, both parties advanced further arguments. If the Union was correct and the
grievor's probationary period had expired, the Employer argues that on the facts, it had just and
reasonable cause to terminate the grievor's employment on August 7, 2013. For its part, the Union
submits that if the grievor was in fact still in his probationary period, the Employer was not justified
in concluding that the grievor was unsuitable for continued employment as an electrical safety
officer.
5 In the final alternative, the Employer submits that should I find in favour of the Union on either
basis, i.e., that it did not have just and reasonable cause to terminate the grievor's employment or
that it was not justified in concluding that the grievor was unsuitable for continued employment, I
should still not reinstate the grievor to employment with the Employer as an electrical safety officer.
Instead, it says, I should award him an amount of damages in lieu of such reinstatement.
II
6 The background facts to this proceeding are as follows.
7 The Employer is responsible for regulating safety in seven different technologies. One of
those technologies involves electrical systems. Regulation covers both the installation of the
technologies as well as their annual maintenance. Safety officers continue to inspect work done on
those technologies and systems, but Wagner testified that there has been a shift in recent years to
more of an emphasis on education and building relationships based on a mutual commitment to
safety. The Employer's clients are principally contractors and businesses and it has endeavoured
in the recent years to enhance safety through encouraging safe attitudes and achieving buy-in to
safe practices rather than relying on strict enforcement. In fact, it appears that only roughly 20% of
all work performed by electrical contractors is inspected by a safety officer.
8 Some larger municipalities employ their own staff to advise with respect to, and inspect, the
installation and maintenance of these different technologies, including electrical systems within
their municipal boundaries. The City of Victoria is one example. For areas outside these municipal
boundaries, staff employed by the Employer perform these functions.
9 The Employer has developed a Role Profile for the Electrical Safety Officer position which
provides as follows:
Job Purpose: The Safety Officer is accountable to the Regional Business Leader for maintaining
and enhancing public safety by educating the public and industry and ensuring that codes,
regulations and standards of safety are understood and observed.
Principal Accountabilities:

69
1. Education: educate clients and stakeholders on how to meet safety requirements and provide
information on new requirements and trends by creating and/or providing presentations,
demonstrations or individual coaching.
2. Inspection: provide inspection services, including worksite audits, incident investigations and
hazard eliminations, to clients and stakeholders to ensure that safety regulations, codes and
standards are correctly implemented, and reviews request for variances and equivalencies and
makes recommendations to the Safety Manager.
3. Enforcement: implement enforcement policies by providing clear direction and outlining
consequences to clients and by providing disciplinary recommendations to Safety Manager.
4. Research: support research tasks by documenting inspections, providing audits, and
investigating incidences and maintain expertise by staying up-to-date on industry changes and
upgrading knowledge and skills on an ongoing basis.
5. Training: develop new Safety Officers by providing on-the-job training, regular mentoring and
ongoing technical support.
10 The Employer has also developed a set of Standards of Conduct for its employees.
Employees are advised in the Standards document of the "need to understand and adhere to all
aspects of this document" and that a failure to comply with them may result in the employee being
"subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal." One of the standards is "Service to
the Public" which is explained in the document this way:
British Columbia Safety Authority employees must provide service to the public in a manner that is
courteous, professional, equitable, efficient and effective. Employees must be sensitive and
responsive to the changing needs, expectations and rights of a diverse public while respecting the
legislative framework within which service to the public is provided.
11 The grievor is a trades qualified electrician. Prior to joining the Employer, he had operated
his own electrical contracting business in the Greater Victoria area since 2005. The grievor was
well regarded for his technical skills and knowledge and it was this knowledge that caused Martin
Reinders, an electrical safety officer with the Employer, to encourage the grievor to apply for an
electrical safety officer vacancy in the Employer's Victoria office that arose in the fall of 2012.
12 The grievor was the successful applicant for that vacancy and he commenced work for the
Employer on November 4, 2012. In a letter from the Employer dated October 17, 2012 advising
him of the success of his application, the grievor was informed of various terms and conditions of
his employment. One of those terms was that

70
Your first six months of employment is a probation period during which you will be closely
assessed on your work performance, personal suitability and willingness to learn and participate in
the Operations and Service Excellence Department ....
13 The term "probation" is defined in the Definition section in the parties' collective agreement
as follows:
"probation" — for an employee means that period of probation immediately following hiring or
promotion until he/she has worked the equivalent of three months full-time employment except
where licensing requirements must be met, in which case the period shall be the equivalent of six
months full-time employment. Extension of the probation period is possible if deemed necessary
by the Human Resources Strategic Leader or designate.
14 New safety officers undergo a training program that coincides in length with their
probationary periods. First of all, they attend at the Employer's head office and are orientated to
various administrative tools they will have to utilize during the course of their employment. They
then return to their regions and are buddied-up with current safety officers as they go about
performing their duties. In this way, they can observe experienced safety officers performing the
various duties of their job. Once they feel ready, the probationary safety officers are permitted to
perform inspections under the direct observation of experienced safety officers. During their
probationary period, the new electrical safety officers are given instruction and training on the
applicable electrical codes by Ivan Pye, a senior electrical safety officer. Finally, after four to five
months of this training, the probationary officers can write the safety officers' exam. If they pass,
they are then assigned a small area within their region to be responsible for, albeit their work is
checked by other safety officers for a period of time.
15 The grievor went through this training program during his probationary period. He was
initially assigned to buddy-up with Rick Barry, an experienced electrical safety officer, but Barry
went off work shortly after the grievor joined the Employer. Barry was replaced by another
experienced safety officer to buddy-up with the grievor.
16 On or about November 20, 2012, the grievor was with Neil Banman, another electrical safety
officer working out of the Employer's Victoria office, on a visit to a townhouse project where the
electrical work was being undertaken by Titan Electric Ltd. (hereinafter "Titan"). The grievor had
had some differences with that firm prior to his joining the Employer. The grievor undertook an
inspection of some of the work that was being done, and in the course of doing so engaged in
conversation with Jason Wycherley, the journeyman electrician performing the work. Wycherley
did not appreciate some of the comments the grievor made and he complained to his supervisors,
Dennis Baggett and Jason Myers, the principals of Titan. Baggett and Myers in turn complained to
Wagner. Wagner testified that the people from Titan were left with the sense that the grievor felt

HRMT 5190 Arbitration Case Book - Group Two.pdf

HRMT 5190 Arbitration Case Book - Group Two.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to HRMT 5190 Arbitration Case Book - Group Two.pdf

Similar to HRMT 5190 Arbitration Case Book - Group Two.pdf (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

HRMT 5190 Arbitration Case Book - Group Two.pdf