Grievance (labour)

Grievance procedures can differ slightly from province to province, or state to state, though the process itself is quite similar whether it occurs in Canada or the United States.

Most grievance cases feature a three to four step process. In a workplace that features a union structure, grievances begin with an employee bringing forth a particular issue or issues to their direct management source (usually in writing) within a specified period following the particular infraction. The issue is then in the hands of management who now has a specific period to respond personally or escalate the issue further to a higher authority. At this point, and sometimes even prior, a union representative enters the situation (if such structure exists) on behalf of the employee. If the situation cannot be resolved in an informal manner, or the preliminary stages of a formal grievance, the case is usually brought to an independent arbitrator. Since this is in many cases a last step in the process, the decision of an arbitrator is usually seen as final. A step that must be mutually agreed upon and one that is not always usual in the process is presenting the grievance to a mediator, who can assist the two or more sides solve their disagreement without having to go to arbitration. Mediation tends to cost both sides far less in terms of finances and time as opposed to the arbitration process.[6]

An important piece of the grievance process in Canada and the United States revolves around timelines that must be met to ensure that a grievance remains active. Time limits are not always set, but they are in most cases, and this is why this is an important factor to highlight. In Canada for instance, a grievance must be filed within twenty five days of the occurrence being reported to a secondary party.[7] This time limit excludes weekends and holidays that would usually be paid. An employer is required to respond to a grievance within ten days of its initial receipt. In many cases, if these set time limits are not adhered to, a grievance can be nullified. It is acceptable for an employee and employer to mutually agree upon extending certain deadlines past the above noted days allowable, though it is recommended to do so in writing.[7]

The process of a grievance in the United Kingdom is not significantly different from the process used in Canada and the United States, however, the process will be outlined below.

A grievance filed by an employer or employee should be submitted in writing. The next step involves a meeting between employee and employer. It is a statutory right for an employee to be able to bring a companion, but not just anyone, there are stipulations here; the companion must be a member of the union representing the employee, co-worker or similar. If an employer or employee is unsatisfied following the meeting, there will be an opportunity to appeal the decision. In some cases, an appeal is held in-house by an impartial individual who may be employed by the same organization but had no previous involvement or bias in the case.[8]

If not done correctly, workplace dismissal and the way in which it is handled can result in a grievance being filed. This specific case highlights a case of dismissal gone wrong. In 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rewarded a wrongfully dismissed employee named John Gordon Pate $550,000 in damages for his March 1999 dismissal.[9]

→DHARVI BIRLA Mr. Pate was Chief Building Official of the Corporation of the Township of Galway-Cavendish from 1989 until December 31, 1998.[9] The Township of Galway-Cavendish had dismissed Mr. Pate based on an issue with his handling of building permit fees. The Township went one step further and asked the OPP to look into the matter and potentially lay criminal charges. This request by the township to the provincial police was well-received and led to a four-day long criminal trial. This trial ended in the dismissal of the former employees original charges.[10]

Following this particular ordeal, Mr. Pate in turn sued the Township for wrongful dismissal as well as malicious prosecution. He won on both charges. In November 2013, the Ontario Court of Appeal lowered the amount of damages awarded to Mr. Pate to $450,000.[10]

This specific case involves an employee named Patricia Wilson and her employer Solis Mexican Foods. According to the specific case subsection on the Cassels Brock Lawyers website, "This was the first Ontario court decision to award damages under the Human Rights Code."[11] She was an assistant controller with the company as of January 2010, until the date of termination. A letter dated May 19, 2011, advised Ms. Wilson that she would be terminated due to the sale of a sector of the business that made several existing positions within the company superfluous.[12]

Prior to termination, Ms. Wilson, through her doctor had requested time off of work, dated March 7, 2011, in order to heal a recurring back issue. On March 28, 2011, once again through her doctor, Ms. Wilson informed her employer that she would be able to return to work on modified duties that included 4-hour work days beginning the week of April 4, with the promise of full 8-hour days commencing by April 18. The employer found this to be unacceptable and requested further information, which was promptly provided. One final twist in the lead up to the dismissal includes an unexpected letter from Ms. Wilson's doctor, which was dated April 28, 2011, simply stating that her client would need to be off of work until June 15, 2011. The case transcripts do not provide any further communication between this last request and the time of termination.[12]

The specific case subsection on the Cassels Brock Lawyers website outlines the decision of this case when it states that, "The Ontario Superior Court awarded $20,000 to the employee after finding that her ongoing back problems and related requests for accommodation were a factor in the employer’s decision to terminate, despite the employer’s argument that her termination was part of a corporate reorganization."[11][13]