In a pair of recent decisions, the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board confirmed the broad and purposive approach to the statutory freeze on terms and conditions of employment during collective bargaining. In Public Service Alliance of Canada v Treasury Board (Correctional Service Canada) and Public Service Alliance of Canada v Canada Revenue Agency, the Board found that the employer had violated the freeze by altering terms and conditions of employment without the union’s consent.

The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, like labour law in most jurisdictions, contains a prohibition on altering the terms and conditions of employment while a union and employer are engaged in collective bargaining. The provision states that, unless the parties otherwise agree, “each term and condition of employment applicable to the employees in the bargaining unit to which the notice relates that may be included in a collective agreement, and that is in force on the day on which the notice is given, is continued in force and must be observed by the employer, the bargaining agent for the bargaining unit and the employees in the bargaining unit” until either a collective agreement is reached or a strike could be commenced. This is referred to as a “freeze” on terms and conditions of employment. The purpose of the statutory freeze is to maintain the status quo, and provide stability during the collective bargaining process.

In the Correctional Service Canada case, the Union argued that the employer had violated the freeze by reducing the hours of work of full-time term employees to four days per week, contrary to its longstanding practice. The Board agreed, finding that there was “no evidence that the respondent had made any reductions to the hours of work of the affected employees before the freeze period”, and therefore there was an established pattern of full-time employment for term employees, which created a reasonable expectation that hours would not be reduced during the freeze period.

In the Canada Revenue Agency case, the Union argued that the employer violated the freeze by eliminating the ability of employees to select variable and flexible work hours commencing before 8:00 a.m. The Board agreed, holding: “It was demonstrated that before September 2014, employees had been able to request flexible and super-compressed work schedules for years and that their requests had been approved. Thus, a pattern had been established. Once notice to bargain was given, it was reasonable for the employees to expect that it would continue.”

Both decisions endorse the “business as before” approach to statutory freeze complaints, which requires consideration of the entire pattern of the employment relationship prior to the freeze, in order to determine whether there was a violation. The Board rejected the narrower approach advocated by the employer in both cases, and also rejected the claim that the employer retained discretion to modify hours of work pursuant to legislation. As the Board stated in Canada Revenue Agency, to accept that argument “would render the protection conferred under the statutory freeze provision meaningless and it could lead to an absurd interpretation of the Act.”

The Public Service Alliance of Canada was represented in both cases by Amanda Montague-Reinholdt of RavenLaw.

On November 5, 2016, Jacob Saltiel participated as a judge in the University of Ottawa Law’s moot court competition for first-year students. Jacob judged two groups of students who presented arguments based on the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Spence v BMO Trust Company. Jacob provided commentary and guidance to the impressive participants on their oral advocacy and presentation.

David Yazbeck has recently been appointed as a member of the Advisory Committee for the Queen’s Centre for Law in the Contemporary Workplace. This committee is composed of leaders in the field of workplace law. It is a tremendous resource for the Centre, providing advice on emerging issues, on research and conference activity and linking the Centre and its work to diverse professional communities with an interest in workplace law. Launched in 2010, the mission of the Centre is to advance law and policy in the contemporary workplace. Its vision is to be a leading force for innovation and law, policy and dialogue in the contemporary workplace.

Amanda Montague-Reinholdt has been elected to the Board of Directors for the Magnetic North Theatre Festival. Amanda has also been elected to serve as Secretary on the Board’s Executive Committee.

Magnetic North is Canada’s only national theatre festival, showcasing the very best of contemporary Canadian theatre. It has its home base in Ottawa, which hosts the festival every second year. The festival also has a unique travelling mandate, hosting the festival in a different community across Canada in alternate years, including the incredibly successful 2016 festival in Whitehorse. The next festival will take place in Ottawa in June 2017, coinciding with the celebrations of Canada’s 150^th anniversary.

The partners of Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck are pleased to announce the selection of the successful 2017 Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck Human Rights/Social Justice Internship candidates, Megan Fultz and Emily Cumbaa. Both Megan and Emily are in the second year of their studies at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. We congratulate Megan and Emily on their achievement and look forward to working with them this summer when the internship takes place.

This is the twelfth  consecutive year that our firm has offered this Human Rights/Social Justice internship. Every summer, we provide paid employment to a student from the University of Ottawa Law School with placements in our firm and two social justice or human rights organizations. This year, Megan and Emily will be working with the Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA) and the Economic and Social Council of Ottawa-Carleton. Previous placements for our internship have included the Workers’ History Museum, International Development Research Centre, EGALE Canada, Amnesty International, the Ottawa Coalition to End Violence Against Women, the Council of Canadians, REACH Canada, National Educational Association of Disabled Students and many other organizations which provide significant contributions in the areas of social justice and human rights.

The group of former military members who launched a class action regarding sexual misconduct in the Armed Forces has now filed a Statement of Claim in the Superior Court of Ontario. Amy Graham, Nadine Schultz-Nielsen, and Larry Beattie filed their full Statement of Claim on December 13, 2016, setting out their personal experiences of sexual assault and harassment, as well as the remedies that they are seeking on behalf of all class members.

The class action covers all current and former members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have experienced sexual assault, sexual harassment and abuse of power in the course of their education, training and service in the military. The Statement of Claim seeks compensation for affected members, as well as declarations and systemic orders against the government to change a system that condones a culture of sexual misconduct and punishes victims instead of perpetrators.

You can read more about the Statement of Claim here:

• CBC News: Sexual-misconduct lawsuit against Armed Forces alleges ‘reckless’ conduct

• Radio-Canada: Les Forces canadiennes visées par un recours collectif de 1 milliard de dollars

• Le Journal de Montréal: Un recours collectif d’un milliard $ contre l’armée

For more information, or if you or your family member may be affected by the class action, you can contact Raven Law at armedforcesclassaction@ravenlaw.com.

On March 22, 2017, RavenLaw sponsored Reach Canada’s Jamming for Justice event. The concert celebrated the opening of Reach’s new headquarters and was emceed by RavenLaw’s own David Yazbeck. Reach Canada is a legal referral organization for persons with disabilities and is dedicated to providing education and information on all matters pertaining to disabilities. RavenLaw was proud to support Reach’s event and to help raise funds for its important work.

It is with great sadness that we announce the passing of our dear friend and colleague, Mary Mackinnon. Mary joined the firm in 2006 and became a partner in 2008. She was a tireless advocate for workers’ rights who was highly respected in the legal community. Her work on behalf of individual employees, human rights claimants and unions is a testament to her deep personal commitment to social justice and equality. Mary was a wonderful colleague and a generous mentor to new lawyers. We will all miss her tremendously.

Donations in Mary’s memory can be made to Kidney Cancer Canada: www.kidneycancercanada.ca

RavenLaw reminds all interested students that applications for the 2017 Human Rights/Social Justice Internship are due this Friday, January 20, 2017. This is the 12^th consecutive year that this paid internship has been sponsored by the firm. This exciting opportunity will provide an excellent and meaningful summer work experience to law students who are particularly interested in issues pertaining to social justice, human rights or equality rights.

This year’s partner organizations are the Economic and Social Council of Ottawa-Carleton (CESOC – le Conseil Économique et Social d’Ottawa Carleton) and the Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA). Interested students from the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law (common law) should contact Mélanie Clément at m.clement@uottawa.ca for more information on the internship or directions on how to submit their application.

In a recent decision, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board allowed a complaint filed by the Public Service Alliance of Canada, alleging that the government had interfered with the union’s administration and its representation of members during collective bargaining. The complaint was filed after Treasury Board refused to permit a union negotiator to conduct walkthroughs of various worksites, and hold on-site meetings with members to discuss bargaining issues.

PSAC had filed a similar complaint in the last round of collective bargaining, which was also allowed by the Board. The Board had found the employer’s refusal to grant the union access to the worksite to violate the Public Service Labour Relations Act, and the Board ordered the employer to cease denying access in the absence of a compelling and justifiable business purpose.

In the more recent complaint, PSAC complained again that the employer was denying access to the worksite without any business justification; instead, the employer was simply relying on its property rights, and the limited rights of the union to enter the employer’s premises in the Collective Agreement. The union argued that the employer’s position showed a blatant disregard for the final and binding decision in the previous case.

In its decision, dated September 14, 2016, the Board again found in favour of the union. The Board held that the union had a legitimate interest in the negotiator viewing the worksite, and that the employer had not presented any compelling or justifiable reasons to deny access. The Board therefore allowed the complaint, and ordered the employer to cease denying access in the absence of compelling and justifiable business reasons that such access might undermine its legitimate workplace interests.

This is a significant victory for unions in the federal public service, and provides important affirmation of the union’s interest in gaining a better understanding of working conditions on the ground and meeting with members during collective bargaining.

The union was represented in the complaint by Amanda Montague-Reinholdt of RavenLaw.