Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Telus Twu Collective Agreement

The union argued that Hydro-Québec`s decision is not to accept the principles of the obligation. BP`s termination was contrary to the collective agreement and Canadian human rights law. BP`s absences, which were beyond BP`s control, were not so extreme in the context of their total employment that their employment was frustrated (Massey-Ferguson Ltd. v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, [1969] O.L.A.A. No. 2 (hamlet)). There is a difference between short- and long-term absences, the former being more likely to disrupt operations (Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. Canada Post Corp., [2004] C.L.A.D. No. 510 (Christie). Telus had no trouble replacing BP when it was away. BP`s absences varied during his employment and were partly related to the employer`s lack of accommodation.

It is for the employer to prove that they were excessive (Southern Railway of British Columbia and Independent Canadian Transit Union, Local 7, [1998] B.C.C.A.A.A. No. 31 (Germaine)). There was little evidence of the absence of corporate “standards” or that The Grievor was informed of any attendance standard. This result should ease the burden on employers. If confirmed, the arbitrator`s decision would have seriously complicated the accommodation process for all unionized employers in Canada. Employers wishing to respond to housing requests would have been hampered by the legal obligation to inform, inform and consult unions on each request for accommodation. This would have resulted in significant costs and delays for both employers and workers, particularly in situations where an employer has the right to simply provide housing without the union`s consent. After a year of collective bargaining, the TWU, ETC National Local 1944, reached an interim agreement with Telus in early October. The local bargaining committee held membership meetings across Canada in October and early this month to discuss the interim collective agreement and vote on the interim settlement. Ballot papers were counted on November 23 and 68% of the votes voted in favour of approval. The TWU appealed to the BC Court of Appeal.

In Telus Communications Inc. v. TWU, 2017 BCCA 100 (PDF), the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the Union`s appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed with McEwan J.A. that the arbitrator was inappropriate in concluding that the TWU was entitled to participate in all accommodations. The Court of Appeal found that this was sufficient to rule on the issue, but expressed support for McEwan J.`s other finding that it was unreasonable for the arbitrator to conclude that TELUS and the TWU did not restrict TWU`s rights in the collective agreement. 17 Because of the individualized nature of the host obligation and the diversity of circumstances that may arise, rigid rules should be avoided. If a company can offer a variable work plan to the worker without unreasonable difficulties or carry out its duties – or even authorize staff transfers – to ensure that the worker is doing his job, he must do so to house the worker. For example, at McGill University Health Centre (Montreal General Hospital) v. Montreal General Hospital Employers` Union, [2007] 1 P.C.R. 161, 2007 CSC 4, the employer had authorized absences that were not included in the collective agreement. Similarly, in the case of the Law Society, Hydro-Québec tried for several years to adapt the complainant`s working conditions: changes to her employment, part-time work, assignment to a new position, etc.

However, if, in a case of chronic absence, the employer demonstrates that, despite the worker`s accommodation measures [page 571], the worker will not be able to return to work in a reasonably foreseeable future, the employer will have met its burden of proof and found undue hardship.