The union argued that the board of directors should reimburse its employees for all expenses they incurred as part of the transition to remote work. These expenses range from $20/month to $1,000 and include office supplies, furniture, technology, internet, and utilities. The union argued that the board`s failure to reimburse members` expenses constituted an unlawful restriction on its members` compensation and an inappropriate and arbitrary exercise of its management rights, which was inconsistent with the collective agreement and the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA). In addition, the union argued that the board of directors had unfairly enriched itself by passing on its operating costs to its employees. They also argued that the Commission had applied technological changes without adequate notice and that it had changed the terms and conditions of employment and, consequently, had violated seniority rights. 1Toronto District School Board v. CUPE LOCAL 4400, 2021 CanLII 27922 (ON LA) at paragraph 26.2 Peter v. Beblow, 1993 CanLII 126 (SCC), [1993] 1 p.C.R. 9803 Ibid., at paragraph 30.

If you would like a hard copy of your collective agreement, please speak to your steward. If you don`t know who your steward is or how to get to your home, contact your local CUPE office. If you have questions about your rights at work, the best person to talk to is your steward or local leader. You will know the specific details of your agreement. Arbitrator Gedalof found that the provision, which requires 12 weeks` notice for decisions to introduce technological changes, does not include temporary emergency measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Board of Directors therefore did not violate the collective agreement. All CUPE members work under the protection of a contract called a collective agreement. Your local negotiates the terms of the agreement. Elected local union leaders also work with the employer to resolve issues in the workplace. Second, Arbitrator Gedalof found that the board is not in violation of the provisions of the collective agreement, which requires the board to discuss technological changes with the union no later than 12 weeks before the change is introduced. As the changes were made due to government-imposed mandates for school closures, the transition to remote work did not constitute a technological change within the meaning of the collective agreement.

In addition, the Commission did not make the decision to require remote work. The arbitrator explained, “Due to the silence in the agreement, the Board presented the reimbursement policy as a reasonable means of remedying the situation, as it gave employees the opportunity to seek Board approval for expenses and to consider alternatives to the purchase of bags. Arbitrator Gedalof noted that many employees purchased items without considering other options from the board or before seeking board approval for reimbursement. Moreover, the Commission did not infringe section 13 of the ESA by not withholding wages. As regards the Union`s argument of unjust enrichment, the arbitrator concluded that the Union had not fulfilled the three criteria for unjust enrichment, namely enrichment, corresponding disadvantage and the absence of a legal ground for enrichment.2 The Commission argued that there was no legal basis in the collective agreement. the ESA or equity for the reimbursement of expenses incurred as a result of remote work, as the circumstances were not under the Control of the Committee. In April 2020, the Board issued a reimbursement policy to manage the reimbursement of expenses to employees, which requires employees to receive prior approval for expenses. The policy includes the following: Arbitrator Gedalof found that the Board of Directors exercised its management rights appropriately and did not violate the collective agreement or esa. The arbitrator also noted that the Commission had not been unfairly enriched.

The arbitrator reviewed the collective agreement and found no specific provision on expenses incurred when it is “illegal, impossible or dangerous to enter the workplace to work, but when it is possible to do so from home at a personal price”1. In addition, the Commission argued that the changes related to the COVID-19 pandemic did not constitute technological changes within the meaning of the collective agreement. Finally, the Commission argued that they had not violated seniority rights by implementing changes to protect health and safety during a global pandemic. Finally, the arbitrator noted that the Board had not changed the nature of the employment, which had resulted in a violation of seniority rights. Given that the changes in position were caused by temporary emergency measures to protect occupational health and safety during a global pandemic, the arbitrator noted that the parties did not intend to include such changes in the collective agreement. However, the arbitrator noted that if the changes were made in other circumstances, this could constitute a violation of seniority rights. Arbitrator Gedalof`s decision in CUPE TDSB v. LOCAL 4400 underscores the reverence given to school authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic, where health and safety concerns are of paramount importance.

As long as the action of the school authority is reasonable, labour law decision-makers will interpret collective agreements in favour of employers, who have had to adapt to new circumstances. The COVID-19 pandemic has been unprecedented and most, if not all, collective agreements will not include provisions to deal with such circumstances. Labour lawmakers will likely need to continue to interpret silence to adapt to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. In Toronto District School Board v SECTIONP 4400, CUPE 4400 (the Union) raised complaints arising from the transition of Toronto District School Board (Council) staff to remote work due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In a decision released on April 9, 2021, arbitrator Eli Gedalof dismissed the complaints and found that the board of directors had adequately exercised its management rights during the transition to remote work. Today, we celebrate people with disabilities while committing to a more inclusive and accessible society for all. Get involved by raising awareness or promoting accessibility in your community. Subsequently, the board updated the refund policy on May 29, 2020 to include the following: On that day in 1989, a tragic mass shooting claimed the lives of 14 young women at École Polytechnique de Montréal. This devastating act of targeted violence shook the country and prompted Parliament to declare 6 December as a National Day of Action and Commemoration of Violence against Women. Today, we come together not only to commemorate this tragedy and its victims, but also to reflect on the fact that gender-based violence remains a reality. By creating a culture.

We can ensure that tragedies like the shooting at École Polytechnique de Montréal never happen again. INFORMATION ON SCHOOL STAFF – TDSB Document Read more Arbitrator Gedalof considered three main issues: In general, purchases of technological equipment, computer peripherals (. B helmets, printers, etc.) and consumables (e.B. printer toner) for working from home are not reimbursed. These purchases are only allowed if they are considered essential items for the work they do and the supervisory authority approves the purchase in advance. On March 12, 2020, the Ontario government began closing all public schools in the province, with closures and distance learning extending until the end of the school year. During the 2020-2021 school year, the Ontario government ordered schools to open and close several times. Due to school closures, many board members had to work from home. For more information on the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, see: idpwd.org/ Learn more about this important date at: cfc-swc.gc.ca/…/v…/remembrance-commemoration-en.html It would simply be absurd to conclude that the parties intended to cover such temporary emergency measures with this provision, given the 12-week notice requirements. This would effectively mean that to meet the requirements, the board would have to put on hold all the technological changes required by the closure for 4 months, or in this case beyond the end of the school year, and the immediate need to implement these changes in the first place.3 UNIT D – Communiqué 521– COVID-19 – School closure – TDSB document Read more CENTRAL ADMINISTRATOR – COVID-19 PROTOCOL Work from home March 2020 – TDSB document Learn more….