quote:

---

In this case CUPE had breached its duty of fair representation "by failing to consider all the relevant factors when deciding not to take Larson's grievance to arbitration."

Larson's lengthy discipline-free record was one such factor, whereas the legal opinion obtained by CUPE focused exclusively on whose version of events the arbitrator was likely to believe.

---

What duty does a union have to fight for a worker?

CUPE Local 561 v. B.C. Labour Relations Board

[ 22 November 2006: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

Both of us were CUPE members who had been terminated. The only conceivable reason that this case went in favour of the member (both before the LRB and subsequently in court) while mine did not is because he had been employed for seven years while I had a mere nine months.

I guess the principle must be that the longer one is on the job the more entitlement one can claim to justice.

Some other very interesting observations:

My BCSC hearing took place one month after this one. A judgement was issued on my case barely three weeks later (which must be approaching a record). This one took more than seven months, although they are of almost the same length (59 paragraphs v. 63 paragraphs).

I would say that is because the judgement in my case had been largely written before the hearing.

Perhaps Justice McEwan took the opportunity to ponder the disgraceful travesty concocted by his colleague, Justice Rogers, and decided not to follow his example.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/05/13/2005bcsc1366.htm
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/05/04/2005bcsc0487.htm

The solicitor, Allison Matacheskie, mentioned at paragraph 9, who gave the opinion on which CUPE relied to justify abandoning the grievance, worked with which law firm? Well, I recall seeing her name listed at Granville and Pender Labour Law Office along with that of Patrick Dickie, CUPE's counsel in this matter.

But Ms. Matacheskie has been for some while now a Vice Chair at the Labour Relations Board along with Greg Mullaly who had made the LRB determination against CUPE in this case. Nothing like keeping the business in the family, right? It makes for a very cosy world and very secure incomes.

What is also of great interest to me is all the argument about the validity of a legal opinion on whether to proceed to arbitration. In my experience the union didn't even bother seeking a legal opinion. It decided to go to arbitration without one. Unfortunately it then neglected to actually show up for the hearing.

[ 21 November 2006: Message edited by: gbuddy ]