Union argued job given to less senior worker violating collective agreement
A job posting was awarded to a less senior forestry worker because that worker held a valid driver’s licence.
Rick Holland had more than 40 years’ experience in the logging business and was hired on Jan. 5, 2011, as a grapple skidder with Jordan River Logging (JRL) on Vancouver Island in British Columbia. In December 2015, an open position as a skidder operator was posted but Holland missed the deadline to apply
because he was on layoff.
Because of what it termed a miscommunication, the United Steel Workers, Local 1-1937, filed a grievance.
One of the requirements for the operator post was for the employee to possess a B.C. driver’s licence. However, Holland’s licence was not valid because he refused to pay a debt of $490 (which had arisen to $1,700 with interest) to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia stemming from a previous vehicle collision.
The employer, Lyle Newton, said he would have paid Holland’s debts so he could secure a licence but he wasn’t aware Holland was not licenced until the hearing.
In the past, the job did not include the requirement to have a licence because all of the work was performed in the bush and not on any public roads.
The requirement was not listed on the job posting, but the employer testified that many reasons necessitated the need for a licence.
For example, the company provided operators with pickup trucks to drive to and from work. As well, an operator was required to deliver supplies on the pickup trucks that may be required by other operators. Also, an operator may be needed to perform occasional man-checks (driving to a site whenever a worker failed to answer a safety radio call to check in).
The union argued the job was given to a less senior worker, which violated the collective agreement. And by not stating in the posting that a driver’s licence was necessary, the employer attempted to retroactively circumvent the collective agreement.
The union also argued plenty of operators worked at any given time, so the requirement to man-check could be accomplished by those employees.
But the employer countered that the requirement to have a valid licence was a long-standing practice and was verbally implied. It argued it did not have to be written into the posting.
In dismissing the grievance, arbitrator Paul Love said the posting period time limit — which Holland missed — was effectively waived when Newton offered to pay for the licence. However, the requirement to hold a valid B.C. licence was an essential part of the job posting, even though it was not specifically written into the posting.
“The requirement of a driver’s licence is reasonable and related to the tasks to be performed. It was not a requirement imposed by the employer that was directed against Holland in an attempt to deny him the position. JRL has turned down job applicants in the past because they did not hold a driver’s licence,” said Love. “It is quite reasonable for an employer to assume that a person applying for an operator job would be licenced for driving as they need to get to work.”
The principle of seniority was not violated because the licence provision was more important in considering who should have won the position, according to Love.
“The requirement for an operator to have a driver’s licence does not have a discriminatory effect on senior employees. This is not a case where Holland has a medical or other condition that limits his ability to drive a motor vehicle. He has chosen for personal reasons not to get a driver’s licence.”
Reference: Jordan River Logging and United Steel Workers, local 1-1937. Paul Love — arbitrator. Gregory Heywood for the employer. Jonathan Hanvelt for the employee. Dec. 8, 2016.
