ALBERTA UNION OF PROVINCIAL EMPLOYEES. (The Union)
ALBERTA UNION OF PROVINCIAL EMPLOYEES. (Xxxxxxxxx Grievance), [2010] A.G.A.A. No. 5 (QL) at para. 64, “[i]n order to work, all parents must take some steps on their own to ensure that they can fulfill both their parental obligations and their work commitments. Part of any examination of whether a prima facie case has been established for family status discrimination must therefore include an analysis of the steps taken by the employee him or herself to balance their family life and workplace responsibilities (para. 89). The same principle was applied in Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario) (Xxxxxxxx Grievance), [2012] O.G.S.B.A. No. 155 (QL) at para. 40: “This test requires an employee seeking accommodation to demonstrate he or she was not able to meet a family obligation by reasonable means other than accommodation in the workplace.” That same principle was also applied by a Board of Inquiry established under the Ontario Human Rights Code in Xxxxxx v. Ontario (Office of the Legislative Assembly), [1998] O.H.R.B.I.D. No.13 (QL) at paras. 309 to 311, and in Power Stream at para. 62 (para. 90). Indeed many of the cases put before us that did not find that the union had established a prima facie case were those that lacked evidence of sufficient effort by parents to meet childcare obligations. [51] Arbitrator Xxxxx agreed with the criticism in Xxxxxxxxx (2007) regarding the Xxxxxxxx River requirement that a change in an employer’s rule was a necessary element in finding discrimination. He thought that it was a relevant factor to consider. He also agreed with the reasoning of the Court that: It is often a change in the characteristics of family status that will precipitate a conflict between work and parental obligations and an existing rule that does not accommodate such change may be found to be discriminatory. Indeed that is no different than an existing rule that fails to accommodate a newly acquired disability (para. 59). Arbitrator Xxxxx was also concerned that neither the tribunal nor the Court provided a test to determine when an adverse impact on family status would lead to a finding of discrimination (para. 52). We now have the benefit of a clear test in Xxxxxxxxx (2014), which accords, in our view, with the analysis in Power Stream. The Court’s test says the impact on childcare must not be trivial or insubstantial. Arbitrator Xxxxx held that the impact must be serious on a substantial duty. In addressing what counts as a serious inference of...
ALBERTA UNION OF PROVINCIAL EMPLOYEES. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 (Union Recognition) of the current Agreement between the Covenant Health and A.U.P.E., and Article 3 (Union Recognition, Membership and Dues deduction) of the current agreement between Covenant Health and I.U.O.E., Local Union No. 955, the parties hereby agree that for the term April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2017 or until the date of ratification of the next Collective Agreement, whichever is later, the following provisions shall apply:
ALBERTA UNION OF PROVINCIAL EMPLOYEES. Re: Banked Leave
ALBERTA UNION OF PROVINCIAL EMPLOYEES. Re: Mutual Agreement to Adjust FTEs
