Online post discussed ongoing negotiations
The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Local 1603 filed a group grievance on behalf of Mary Goddard, Tammy Nadeau and Darlene Almon after a Facebook post led to discipline.
The three were employees at the Saint John, N.B., nursing home Rocmaura. A letter was placed in their personnel files after they failed to appear at a meeting with management regarding a post on Almon’s Facebook account.
The post encouraged employees to wear red in support of the union’s bargaining unit as it negotiated with the employer. The post referred to the negotiations as an “upsetting and stressful time.”
The post was brought to the employer’s attention and management found it to be potentially defamatory. An investigation was launched into Goddard, Nadeau and Almon’s involvement with the post and Almon was placed on paid leave while the employer conducted its investigation.
Shortly thereafter, the union membership had a meeting with CUPE national representative Michael Davidson. Confused about the employer’s investigation into the Facebook post and concerned about Almon’s being placed on leave, they asked Davidson to represent them.
The employer scheduled a meeting on Oct. 30, 2015, to discuss its investigation. Davidson was not available to meet on that date, however, and requested the meeting be rescheduled. The employer did not want to delay and informed the employees they could attend the meeting with another union representative.
Goddard, Nadeau and Almon did not attend as Davidson had directed them not to meet to discuss the investigation without him.
A letter was placed in the personnel files of Goddard, Nadeau and Almon on Dec. 2, 2015. The letter stated the employees refused to co-operate with management and failed to attend a scheduled meeting. The letter stated the employees’ refusal to attend amounted to insubordination and warned that another incident of insubordination would result in disciplinary action including, but not limited to, suspension or dismissal.
The employer argued the memo was appropriate because it was non-disciplinary. The memo was putting the union on notice that, in the future, failing to attend a meeting when directed to do so by the employer would be considered insubordination.
The memo was necessary, the employer submitted, because the employees were in no way denied the right to union representation. That right to representation, however, does not mean union members have the right of the representation of their choice. While the employer stated it does not object in principle to the right to choose a representative, that choice should not cause undue delay.
The union filed a group grievance and requested the memo and all related correspondence be removed from the employees’ files.
The delay caused by Davidson’s unavailability for the Oct. 30 meeting was only a few days, the union argued, and past practice has always been that a grievor had a choice of representative.
While the employer claimed the memo was not disciplinary in nature, it clearly stated that further refusal to attend meetings could result in suspension or dismissal. Furthermore, because the memo was not treated as disciplinary by the employer, it did not fall under the sunset clause provision and would remain in the employees’ files indefinitely.
Arbitrator Guy Couturier agreed the delay caused by Davidson’s unavailability was reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with past practices. As a result, he found the memo to be contrary to, and in breach of, the parties’ collective agreement. Couturier ordered the memo be removed from the personnel files of Goddard, Nadeau and Almon.
Reference: Rocmaura and the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 1603. Guy G. Couturier — arbitrator. Sophie Noel for the employer, Michael Davidson for the union. March 9, 2016.
The three were employees at the Saint John, N.B., nursing home Rocmaura. A letter was placed in their personnel files after they failed to appear at a meeting with management regarding a post on Almon’s Facebook account.
The post encouraged employees to wear red in support of the union’s bargaining unit as it negotiated with the employer. The post referred to the negotiations as an “upsetting and stressful time.”
The post was brought to the employer’s attention and management found it to be potentially defamatory. An investigation was launched into Goddard, Nadeau and Almon’s involvement with the post and Almon was placed on paid leave while the employer conducted its investigation.
Shortly thereafter, the union membership had a meeting with CUPE national representative Michael Davidson. Confused about the employer’s investigation into the Facebook post and concerned about Almon’s being placed on leave, they asked Davidson to represent them.
The employer scheduled a meeting on Oct. 30, 2015, to discuss its investigation. Davidson was not available to meet on that date, however, and requested the meeting be rescheduled. The employer did not want to delay and informed the employees they could attend the meeting with another union representative.
Goddard, Nadeau and Almon did not attend as Davidson had directed them not to meet to discuss the investigation without him.
A letter was placed in the personnel files of Goddard, Nadeau and Almon on Dec. 2, 2015. The letter stated the employees refused to co-operate with management and failed to attend a scheduled meeting. The letter stated the employees’ refusal to attend amounted to insubordination and warned that another incident of insubordination would result in disciplinary action including, but not limited to, suspension or dismissal.
The employer argued the memo was appropriate because it was non-disciplinary. The memo was putting the union on notice that, in the future, failing to attend a meeting when directed to do so by the employer would be considered insubordination.
The memo was necessary, the employer submitted, because the employees were in no way denied the right to union representation. That right to representation, however, does not mean union members have the right of the representation of their choice. While the employer stated it does not object in principle to the right to choose a representative, that choice should not cause undue delay.
The union filed a group grievance and requested the memo and all related correspondence be removed from the employees’ files.
The delay caused by Davidson’s unavailability for the Oct. 30 meeting was only a few days, the union argued, and past practice has always been that a grievor had a choice of representative.
While the employer claimed the memo was not disciplinary in nature, it clearly stated that further refusal to attend meetings could result in suspension or dismissal. Furthermore, because the memo was not treated as disciplinary by the employer, it did not fall under the sunset clause provision and would remain in the employees’ files indefinitely.
Arbitrator Guy Couturier agreed the delay caused by Davidson’s unavailability was reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with past practices. As a result, he found the memo to be contrary to, and in breach of, the parties’ collective agreement. Couturier ordered the memo be removed from the personnel files of Goddard, Nadeau and Almon.
Reference: Rocmaura and the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 1603. Guy G. Couturier — arbitrator. Sophie Noel for the employer, Michael Davidson for the union. March 9, 2016.
