SMS Equipment Inc. v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, Local 707 (currently operating as UNIFOR, Local 707-A), (2015) 614 A.R. 125 (QB)

• Judge: Ross, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 10, 2014
• Citations: (2015), 614 A.R. 125 (QB);2015 ABQB 162

SMS Equipment Inc. v. CEPU (2015), 614 A.R. 125 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. MR.122

SMS Equipment Inc. (applicant) v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, Local 707 (currently operating as UNIFOR, Local 707-A)

(respondent)

(1303 16795; 2015 ABQB 162)

Indexed As: SMS Equipment Inc. v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, Local 707 (currently operating as UNIFOR, Local 707-A)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Ross, J.

March 10, 2015.

Summary:

An arbitrator allowed a unionized employee's grievance, concluding that the employer was obligated to accommodate an employee because the requirement for her to work rotating night and day shifts discriminated against her on the basis of family status, as a single mother of two young children, who encountered childcare difficulties during night shifts, pursuant to the Collective Agreement and the Alberta Human Rights Act. The employer applied for judicial review.

The Alberta Court of Queens's Bench dismissed the application, holding held that the arbitrator's conclusions that "family status" included the duties and responsibilities of childcare, and that the union had established a prima facie case of discrimination were reasonable. Alternatively, if the decision was reviewable on the correctness standard, the court would reach the same conclusion by applying the correct interpretation of family status and applying the correct prima facie test of discrimination.

Civil Rights - Topic 918

Discrimination - Family status - What constitutes "family status" - See paragraphs 46 to 50, 69 and 70.

Civil Rights - Topic 983

Discrimination - Employment - What constitutes discrimination - See paragraphs 51 to 68 and 71 to 87.

Civil Rights - Topic 988

Discrimination - Employment - On basis of family, civil or marital status - See paragraphs 46 to 93.

Civil Rights - Topic 992

Discrimination - Employment - Adverse effect, indirect or constructive discrimination - See paragraphs 46 to 93.

Civil Rights - Topic 992.1

Discrimination - Employment - Adverse effect discrimination - Duty of employer or union to accommodate employee - See paragraphs 88 to 93.

Civil Rights - Topic 998

Discrimination - Employment - Exceptions - Bona fide or reasonable occupation requirement or qualification - See paragraphs 88 to 93.

Labour Law - Topic 7112

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - Arbitration - Judicial review - Scope of review - See paragraphs 19 to 45.

Counsel:

Dwayne W Chomyn, Q.C., and Terri Susan Zurbrigg (Neuman Thompson), for the applicant;

Ritu Khullar, Q.C., and Michelle Westgeest (Chivers Carpenter), for the respondent.

This application was heard on October 10, 2014, by Ross, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, who delivered the following reasons for judgment at Edmonton, Alberta, on March 10, 2015.