The representative's conduct, though unprofessional, was protected as a union activity: court
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed an employer’s challenge against a decision overturning a union representative's suspension, ruling that the representative's conduct was protected as union activity.
The employer, PUC Services Inc., had suspended Jeff Priddle, a longtime employee and representative of the Power Workers’ Union, Local 1000, for one day for unprofessional and disrespectful conduct during and after a disciplinary meeting involving another employee.
The union grieved this suspension, leading to an expedited arbitration as per the collective agreement. The arbitrator concluded that while Priddle’s conduct was rude, union representatives should be given leeway in their dealings with management. Consequently, the arbitrator found no just cause for the suspension and struck it down.
PUC sought judicial review, arguing that the arbitration was procedurally flawed. It claimed that the arbitrator refused to consider several preliminary issues, denied an adjournment to submit reply evidence, and did not allow cross-examination of Priddle. PUC also argued that the arbitrator used the wrong legal standard when determining the extent of protection afforded to union representatives.
The Superior Court agreed with PUC that the arbitrator’s refusal to hear the company’s objections regarding the admissibility of evidence was procedurally unfair. However, the court held that this unfairness did not warrant ordering a new hearing. The court found that even if PUC’s objections had been considered, the outcome would have remained the same. It emphasized that the arbitrator did not rely on the contested evidence and fully accepted PUC’s account of Priddle’s conduct.
Despite some procedural lapses, the court ruled that the arbitrator applied the correct legal test and reasonably concluded that Priddle’s actions, while unprofessional, were protected as union activities. The court noted that PUC had not raised arguments under the Occupational Health and Safety Act during arbitration and could not do so now.
In conclusion, the court dismissed PUC’s application, declining to remit the matter for a new hearing. It upheld the arbitrator’s finding that Priddle’s conduct, though harsh, did not warrant disciplinary action beyond a level protected for union activities.
