Packed with valuable information, our publications help you stay in touch with the latest developments in the fields of law affecting you, whatever your sector of activity. Our professionals are committed to keeping you informed of breaking legal news through their analysis of recent judgments, amendments, laws, and regulations.

Advanced search
  • Abuse of the grievance arbitration process: Arbitrators rule in favour of employers

    An employer grievance is a means that employers can use to obtain compensation for material damages caused by pressure tactics or to recover overpayments resulting from a union’s wrongdoing. Such a recourse can also be filed to claim damages and legal fees from a union that has abused the grievance arbitration process, in particular by raising grounds that are unfounded or filing applications that are dilatory, or doing either in bad faith. Although not very common, abuse of process does exist and can be sanctioned. However, an employer can successfully raise abuse of rights when a union’s actions are reckless, manifestly ill-founded, done in bad faith or dilatory. Two recent cases The decision in Régie intermunicipale de police Richelieu Saint-Laurent et Fraternité des policiers et policières Richelieu Saint-Laurent1 is an interesting example: The arbitrator ordered the union to reimburse the employer part of the legal costs that it had incurred, as well as the sums paid to three of its witnesses. The case can be summarized as follows. As a result of pressure tactics, three police were summoned to a disciplinary hearing before the discipline committee.  The parties agreed in writing to reschedule the hearings before the committee. The officers were finally met in 2014, after which they filed grievances to contest the disciplinary measures taken against them. Arbitration was set for May 2018 and a pre-trial conference was held prior to the hearing. At the hearing, the union raised a preliminary exception on the grounds that the disciplinary measures had been imposed outside the time limit set out in the collective agreement. The employer invited the union to make verifications, maintaining that the parties had agreed to postpone the hearing before the discipline committee. The union upheld its preliminary exception. The employer then filed a grievance, claiming damages arising from the union’s time-barred and unfounded preliminary exception. In January 2019, the parties presented their arguments on the preliminary exception and the employer grievance. On February 14, the union withdrew its preliminary exception during deliberations. The arbitrator allowed the employer grievance in part. He concluded that the exception filed by the union was unfounded and that the latter’s conduct was a clear example of an abuse of legal process. The employer was compensated for the costs incurred in defending itself against the abuse of rights. In Syndicat des professeures(eurs) de l'UQAM (SPUQ) et Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM),2 the parties had recently renewed their collective agreement and agreed to a clause providing for a reduction in the salary of professors over 70. Shortly after the collective agreement came into force, grievances were filed challenging the discriminatory nature of the clause. UQAM filed an employer grievance alleging abuse of the grievance process by the union. The evidence showed that the union had agreed to the clause even though it knew that it was discriminatory, with the intention of challenging it in arbitration. The union had even asked that the age of the professors be added to the clause, which made its discriminatory nature even more obvious, thereby maximizing its chances of success at arbitration. The arbitrator allowed the employer grievance and ordered the union to reimburse the arbitrator’s fees and disbursements, as well as the professional fees charged by the employer’s lawyer to represent it during arbitration of the union grievance. He concluded that the union’s actions violated the duty to bargain in good faith and constituted an abuse of rights on the union’s part. Key takeaway and helpful tips Abuse of process can take many forms: the use of an unfounded declinatory exception, for example, or the filing of an abusive grievance arising from collective bargaining in bad faith. When confronted with situations not seen in the ordinary course of labour relations, an employer must determine whether there has been abuse of rights. Should abuse of rights be found, the employer could exceptionally claim the professional fees of its lawyers, the cost of summoning witnesses and possibly other damages resulting from the union’s wrongful conduct by filing an employer grievance. However, employers must bear in mind that an ill-founded union grievance, dismissed on the basis that the union’s interpretation of the facts or collective agreement differs from that of the employer, will not necessarily be deemed abusive. In order to win the case, the employer will have to prove that the union’s actions were reckless, manifestly ill-founded, in bad faith or dilatory. It goes without saying that an abuse of procedure by an employer could also be sanctioned by damages. The members of our Labour and Employment Law team are available to advise you and answer your questions. 2021 QCTA 319. 2021 QCTA 296.

    Read more
  • Thinking Post-Crisis Recovery: Two New Programs for Worker Training and Retention

    Two weeks ago, we published an article on the challenge of retaining your workforce amidst the pandemic. Since that time, two new programs on the subject have been announced by the provincial government. The first is meant to respond to the effects of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) on employee retention, while the second promotes worker training. Incentive Program to Retain Essential Workers (IPREW) Although the CERB has been generally well received, it has led to difficulties for certain businesses that provide essential services. This is because the salaries of many workers (particularly those working part-time and those working as cashiers, delivery persons, security guards and maintenance workers) is lower than the CERB. In some cases, employees who were laid off and later recalled to work on a part-time basis felt penalized (unlike the regular Employment Insurance program, the CERB does not allow beneficiaries to keep part of the wages they receive by working). This disadvantage has led to surging rates of absenteeism. To incentivize essential services workers to remain in their posts, the IPREW provides a taxable bonus of $100 per week up to a maximum of $1,600 over the course of the program. This bonus is retroactive to March 15, 2020. The government estimates that 600,000 workers will be able to benefit from the program. Workers must submit their applications online beginning on May 19, 2020. The first payment is scheduled for May 27, 2020. To be eligible for the IPREW, workers must: Be working part-time or full-time in an essential service; Be over 15 years of age and living in Quebec; Earn $550 or less per week for an annual income of no less than $5,000 and no more than $28,600 for the year 2020; and Not be receiving CERB or PATT benefits. Workers whose employers receive financial aid from the federal government are still eligible. Non-essential businesses may want to consider implementing incentives inspired by the IPREW in order to retain their workforce when they are recalled to work following the gradual return to normal activities scheduled to begin on May 4, 2020. Non-essential businesses will most likely face problems similar to those that led to the creation of the IPREW, most notably because the CERB will be available until October 3, 2020. Concerted Action Program to Maintain Employment (PACME) It is reasonable to assume that companies resuming their operations after the province-wide shutdown will need to adopt many new measures, particularly in terms of workers’ health and safety and, as we wrote about last week, telework. Training workers will become even more relevant and essential. The PACME offers an opportunity to be proactive in that regard. PACME offers funding to employers seeking to promote training and best practices, with a special focus on human resource management during the crisis and in preparation for the reopening of the economy. It also aligns well with the federal wage subsidy program. The PACME is available to businesses whose operations have been reduced, suspended, increased or diversified by the crisis, as well as self-employed workers and organizational partners. To learn more about the PACME, please see the article published by our colleagues on the subject. Our Labour and Employment team is available to advise and accompany you throughout the crisis and the reopening process.

    Read more