On May 2, 2013, James Cameron and Andrew Astritis each presented at the 2013 Accommodation Law Conference in Ottawa, sponsored by Labour Law Online.ca, the Centre for Labour-Management Development.  Their presentations addressed Workplace Policies and the Duty to Accommodate, Discipline, Discharge and the Disabled Employee, Accommodating Family Status, Disabilities requiring special Accommodation, as well as a host of other issues:
http://labourlawonline.ca/main.jsp?p=seminar_desc&seminarid=185&bndid=3&st=3

On April 23, 2013 the Public Service Labour Relations Board (PSLRB) upheld the Public Service Alliance of Canada’s complaint against the Treasury Board and Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). The PSLRB found that the Treasury Board and CBSA violated the statutory freeze on terms and conditions of employment by terminating a long-standing practice of granting union officers full-time union leave with pay. This important decision clarifies the law on the statutory freeze period in the federal public sector and establishes the PSLRB’s approach to the issue of the time limits for making statutory freeze complaints. The case was argued by Andrew Raven with assistance from Dayna Steinfeld of Ravenlaw.

Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP/s.r.l. represented Bronwyn Cruden, a Canadian International Development Agency (“CIDA”) aid worker and member of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (“PSAC”) before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

Ms Cruden filed a complaint with the Tribunal in 2008 against CIDA and Health Canada after being denied a field posting in Afghanistan because she had Type 1 Diabetes. Despite her status as a “rising star” within CIDA and having successfully completed physical examinations and independent specialized medical assessments deeming her fit for posting, Health Canada refused to recommend her for medical clearance.  CIDA, which has the authority to overrule Health Canada recommendations, refused to post her to Afghanistan or to provide suitable accommodation.  Health Canada’s policy prohibits federal government employees with Type 1 diabetes from being posted to Afghanistan and other regions deemed to be “hostile”. Ms Cruden seeks to change the policy and receive compensation for lost wages and opportunities.

The hearing was held from January 17 to February 3, 2011. Bronwyn Cruden was represented by Alison Dewar and Erin O’Hara.

The Federal Court of Appeal recently released its decision in Amos v. Attorney General of Canada, affirming the jurisdiction of an Adjudicator appointed under the Public Service Labour Relations Act to enforce a settlement agreement entered into by the parties to an adjudicable grievance.

In allowing Andrew Amos’ appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal concluded that the Adjudicator’s decision was supported by the PSLRA’s increased emphasis on the voluntary resolution of disputes and Parliament’s intention that the Act provide an exclusive and comprehensive regime for resolving grievances. In doing so, the Court of Appeal agreed that case law under the previous PSSRA no longer applied, rejecting the Respondent’s argument that the grievor’s recourse was limited to presenting a new, non-adjudicable grievance to the employer.

Mr. Amos was represented by Andrew Raven and Andrew Astritis. The full text of the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision is available here.

Our firm recently represented the Public Service Alliance of Canada (“PSAC”) in an appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s 2005 decision to uphold PSAC’s pay equity complaint against Canada Post.

In a rare ruling from the bench, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, reinstating the Tribunal’s decision against Canada Post. The complaint, presented in 1983, resulted in a long-fought legal battle by PSAC, first to have the case referred to Tribunal and then to see the matter through the adjudicative process, which included over 400 hearing days spanning ten years. The award for lost wages and the interest thereon is estimated to be worth approximately $250 million.

The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for both the individuals involved and the pay equity jurisprudence under the Canadian Human Rights Act. In endorsing wholesale the dissenting reasons set out by Justice Evans at the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court re-affirmed the validity of the 1986 Equal Wages Guidelines, including the gender predominance thresholds set out therein. The Supreme Court also confirmed the Tribunal’s decision to accept the expert evidence tendered by PSAC, which demonstrated that Canada Post had failed to pay workers in the female-dominated CR Group equal pay for work of equal value performed by the male-dominated PO Group.

Congratulations to PSAC for this hard-fought and important victory!

Andrew Astritis recently participated as a panellist in the Lancaster House Audio Conference entitled Lying, Cheating and Stealing: What Acts of Employment Dishonesty Warrant Automatic Discharge.

The Audio Conference dealt with a wide range of issues including a review of recent case law regarding the discipline of dishonest conduct, the penalties for theft and abuse of sick leave, and situations in which an employee can be punished for off-duty conduct. The Audio Conference also examined the approach to be applied where misconduct may be attributable to a disability.

For further information, please visit the Lancaster House website.

Our firm recently presented arguments to the Supreme Court of Canada in a significant case involving the removal of the over $28 billion surplus that had built up in the federal Public Service, RCMP and Canadian Forces pension accounts.

Advancing arguments on behalf of the Public Service Alliance of Canada and a number of associations representing current and former members of the Armed Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, our firm maintained that employees had an equitable right to the significant portions of the surplus that were directly attributable to contributions by workers and that this right had not been extinguished by legislation passed in 2000. This is the first case to be heard by the Supreme Court with respect to the rights workers have to a surplus in a statutory pension plan.

PSAC and the above-noted associations were represented by Andrew Raven, James Cameron and Andrew Astritis of RCBY. The Court reserved judgment on the matter.