Who is on the Harper Government Enemies List?

 

Friday, 19 July 2013    http://www.canadianlabour.ca

 

Canadian Labour Congress launches an online contest while it waits for the Harper Government to answer Access to Information Requests about “friend” and “enemy” stakeholder lists

 

OTTAWA ― The Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) is quite sure its name is among the organizations and individuals on the Harper government’s list of “enemies” provided to new Cabinet Ministers earlier this week. But to confirm it, the CLC has filed formal access to information requests to key government departments, asking them to produce the lists of stakeholders deemed friends and foes by ministerial staff at the request of the Prime Minister’s Office.

Knowing that the government will try to avoid transparency and that it could take months and probably numerous appeals before the information is released, the CLC plans to bide the time with a Facebook contest in which Canadians can guess who’s on the Harper Government Top 10 Enemies List.

“It comes as no surprise to us that this government builds files and keeps lists of people they regard as threats to their own agenda,” said CLC President Ken Georgetti. “What is surprising is the PMO going so far as to refer to groups that have different opinions or have different ideas about how to make life better for Canadians as ‘enemies’ and instruct Ministers of the Crown to shut them out,” he said. “It smacks of the darkest days of McCarthyism and is a un-Canadian view of the world.”

Georgetti says there is no doubt in his mind the CLC is among the government’s list of enemies: “Our efforts to expand the Canada Pension Plan and help people save more for retirement, to expose the reckless expansion of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program and the abuse of migrant workers, and to reverse radical cuts to Employment Insurance have us in the PMO’s crosshairs.”

The CLC’s contest can be found at www.facebook.com/Harpers-Most-Unwanted and will run until all of its access to information requests have been fully answered.

The Canadian Labour Congress, the national voice of the labour movement, represents 3.3 million Canadian workers. The CLC brings together Canada’s national and international unions along with the provincial and territorial federations of labour and 130 district labour councils. Web site: www.canadianlabour.ca Follow us on Twitter @CanadianLabour

Senator Segal on Bill 377

 

From:   http://cdnlabourlaw.blogspot.ca/   

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

 

Bill- 377 has been a subject of much debate in the Public and among unions.  This is the Federal Government’s effort to have Unions disclose all kinds of financial information to the Canada Revenue Agency.  Information that charities, NGOs and businesses are not required to disclose.  For some interesting discussion see Doorey’s Blog on the Bill.

However, the bill has collected an attack from within the conservative ranks in the Senate. 

Senator Hugh Segal’s made an impassioned speech against the Bill in the Senate a few days ago.  I have cut and pasted the whole thing below because I enjoyed reading it so much.  Its wonderful to see someone break from party discipline and speak out against laws that are unfair and unconstitutional, I hope other conservative Senators heed Senator Segal’s arguments and defeat this bill. 
— the below is quoted directly from the Senate’s web site—

Hon. Hugh Segal: Honourable senators, I rise with the permission of Senator Ringuette, who has adjourned this motion, to speak on Bill C-377. I believe the bill must be amended and critically examined before committee. As I do believe that, I do not oppose second reading, although I cannot vote for the bill in principle and will not. Let me share my best judgment as to why Bill C-377, dealing with broadening trade union disclosure to CRA, is bad legislation, bad public policy and a diminution of both the order and the freedom that should exist in any democratic, pluralist and mixed-market society.

While I do not question the good faith and enduring belief in transparency of those in the other place who proposed and supported the law, and of my esteemed colleague Senator Eaton who sponsored the bill in this place, I want to point out that, while transparency is a compelling public good, applying it in a discriminatory way is harmful and divisive.

As a Tory, I believe that society prospers when different views about the public agenda, on the left and the right, are advanced by different groups, individuals and interests. Debate between opposing groups in this chamber, in the other place and in broader society is the essence of democracy. Limiting that debate as to scope and breadth is never in the long-term interest of a free and orderly society.

Dispatching CRA to police how trade unions spend their money, in denominations of $5,000 or more, is to increase the role of CRA and of the state in ways that create a bigger, nosier and more expensive government. As a taxpayer and as a Conservative, I oppose that kind of increase in any government’s power or expenditures.
At the disclosure level that is now in the bill — $5,000 — a two- year supply of coffee, a used car, a new computer system or printer, or the replacement of plumbing or a boiler at a union headquarters would qualify for explicit disclosure. Is this all that CRA has to do?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Senator Segal: My colleague from Prince Edward Island, Senator Downe, has spoken eloquently about the need to work harder on tax evasion. Do we want to take people who might be working on tax evasion and have them assess which union local bought a new boiler for its headquarters? That is what this bill would produce.

If this is to apply to trade unions, why would it not apply to rotary clubs, the Fraser Institute, Christian, Muslim and Jewish congregations across Canada, the Council of Chief Executives, local car dealers or the many farming groups, like the cattlemen’s associations or the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, all of whom do great work? How about local constituency associations, food banks, soup kitchens, or anglers and hunters clubs?

All of these groups express views on policy. All have the right, under election law, to volunteer in municipal, provincial or federal elections, and all come to Ottawa to lobby and press government on issues important to them. They do so along with representatives of the defence industry, our First Nations and various cultural groups. Are they all to be swept into the CRA bureaucratic remit? That is what this bill would lead to. If CRA is to become the political judge of what expenses are appropriate, what are the guiding criteria?

The bill is silent on that.

There are, honourable senators, other doubtful provisions that should be of deep concern, such as proposed paragraph 149.01(3) (a), on page 2. It says that information shall be provided in “such form and containing such particulars… as may be prescribed.” It does not say by whom. Would it be the representatives of the Privy Council Office or the Department of Labour? Spare me.

Proposed subparagraph 149.01(3)(b)(ix) lists the need to declare what is spent on labour relations activities, with no concurrent disclosure imposed on the management side. How about a law that forced my political party to disclose its campaign, travel, research and advertising budgets to the Liberal Party of Canada or to the NDP two weeks before the election was called?

Perhaps Coca-Cola should be forced to disclose to Pepsi its marketing plan and expenditures over $5,000.

How about the Montreal Canadiens having to tell the Boston Bruins whether their coach spent more than $5,000 on dinner for their team and where they ate in Boston before the game?

Honourable senators, this bill is about a nanny state; it has an anti-labour bias running rampant; and it diminishes the imperative of free speech, freedom of assembly and free collective bargaining.

I imagine that, were it to pass, subsequent legislation from the other place from private members might be aimed at newspapers; networks, TV and otherwise; student groups; universities; junior baseball leagues; and even, God forbid, community soccer. Where we are headed with this bill is down a dark alley to a very dark place indeed.

If the unions should disclose, so should the auto dealers, the C.D. Howe Institute, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, all the local Legions and all of the various local organizations.

Have we decided that CRA has lots of employees with little to do? When did that meeting happen? Who came to that conclusion? To manage the new nosey mission, CRA would need new employees and up to $2.5 million in operating funds, plus an extra $800,000 a year. That is CRA’s own estimate. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says the number will be much higher.

Let me talk now, in conclusion, about one Conservative who, while not perfect, was generally revered for his role in the building of Canada. His name? Sir John A. Macdonald. We take him seriously in Kingston, Ontario and in other parts of Canada.

In a piece on early labour legislation in Canada, Mark Chartrand, in reference to the introduction and passage of the Trade Unions Act of 1872 under the Liberal-Conservative government of Sir John A. Macdonald, wrote:

Sir John A. Macdonald was solely responsible for the introduction of the Bills. In his preliminary remarks in the House of Commons he said that that they were modelled after British statutes enacted in the previous year [under Gladstone] that had emancipated union members from existing laws that were considered to be “opposed to the spirit of the liberty of the individual” and “too oppressive to be endorsed by free men.” He suggested that it was in Canada’s best interest to enact analogous legislation so that Canadian and British immigrant workers “would have… the same right to combine for the accomplishment of lawful objects, as [workers] had in England.”
During the debate of 12 June, he noted: “[r]ecent events in Toronto —

He was referring to the famous printers’ strike.

— had shown the necessity of adopting some amendment [to existing law] here”, and also expressed his concern that if “workingmen… should learn that the old law remain unchanged, they would not come to settle in Canada”.

 

Honourable senators, the very growth of Canada, the successive waves of immigrants from the British Isles that built Canada in the early days, depended in some measure on protecting legitimate union rights. Honourable senators, they did so then and they do now.
(1510)

Let me quote from Chartrand’s historic work:

… considering the following statement made by Macdonald on 11 July 1872 at a mass meeting sponsored by the Toronto Trades Assembly in his honour “as the friend and saviour of the working man”:

He rose at that meeting and he said:

I ought to have a special interest in this subject… because I am a working man myself. I know that I work more than nine hours every day, and then I think I am a practical mechanic. If you look at the Confederation Act, in the framing of which I had some hand, you will admit that I am a pretty good joiner; and as for cabinet-making, I have had as much experience as Jacques and Hay themselves.

 

The negative effect of this bill, either in deploying CRA on political missions or on limiting freedoms, is debilitating and offensive. The bill before us today, as well as right-to-work legislation that is being proposed in the other place as a private member’s bill, is not who we are as Canadians. It is time this chamber said so.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Segal: Honourable senators, I know union leaders whom I dislike and do not trust. Some have been mean, narrow, divisive and unconstructive, but I defend their right to advance what they consider to be their members’ interests. I know corporate, political and not-for-profit leaders who suffer from the same faults.

As for soft-sounding, labour-financed coalitions that campaign against Conservatives at various points in provincial elections, we have seen that. It is the election laws that should be changed to limit anybody’s right to do so on the right or the left without spending limits and full, timely disclosure, not the Income Tax Act of Canada. This is a matter of election law, not CRA inquisition.

As I adjourn the debate in Senator Ringuette’s name, I urge honourable senators on all sides to reflect on how this bill might be revamped or, if necessary and if it is not revamped at third reading, actually stopped dead in its tracks.
Senator Tardif: Good idea.
Senator Segal: In the interests of free, collective bargaining; strong, competitive environments; safe workplaces; and the fair treatment of working men and women, socially, economic and politically, this bill should be either readily revamped or set aside. If it has been quoted on other matters in this place that “the best social policy is a job,” then people who seek union support in the workplace — as is their right in a free society — should be protected, and the unions who serve them should not be singled- out unfairly.

Thank you, honourable senators.

Ginger Goodwin: A Forceful Presence on the Trail Labour Scene and Hero for Canadian Labour Activism

 

Originally Posted at http://westkootenaylabourcouncil.wordpress.com  June 23, 2013

Albert “Ginger” Goodwin (May 10, 1887 – July 27, 1918)

File:Albert Goodwin fair use.jpg

The controversial nature of Ginger Goodwin’s death has prompted continuing speculation and suspicion; it has also focused attention on his short life and meteoric rise to trade-union leadership. His surviving writings show a rough-hewn assault on capitalism, a call for the achievement of a more just society through the replacement of private ownership of the means of production by production for use, not profit, and an anti-militarism that made him urge workers of all nations not to participate in economic wars. The methods he advocated for achieving the new society were “education, organization and agitation” and the election of members to legislatures. With Marxist rhetoric, he referred to wage slaves who “would rise up in rebellion and overthrow the master class.” He could also sound utopian, portraying post-capitalism as “the new age with its blossoms of economic freedom, happiness and joy for the world’s workers.” His union activity, like that of Frank Henry Sherman* in Alberta, showed a pragmatism which sought a more immediate redress of wrongs. The courage of Goodwin’s conviction in resisting militarism when he was conscripted during wartime, with what proved to be fatal consequence to himself, has been better appreciated in peacetime.

Roger Stonebanks http://www.biographi.ca/009004-119.01-e.php?&id_nbr=7403

Excerpt From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Goodwin

Goodwin was born in Treeton, Yorkshire, England, becoming a coal miner for most of his working life. Goodwin followed the work, mining in England, Nova Scotia, and from late 1910 on, Vancouver Island. Mayse’s book Ginger: The Life and Death of Albert Goodwin says that Goodwin found the working conditions in the Cumberland mines to be “appaling” and that he organized his local, and convinced it to “down tools” in protest. These actions led into a “vicious coal strike on Vancouver Island” in 1912-13. Although the strike did not garner favorable change for workers, it was regarded as an extreme economic burden on Canada, and Goodwin was considered to be an instigator by management. Goodwin found himself “blackballed” from mining, never finding work in the coal mines again. This solidified Goodwin’s resolve to demand favorable change; through trade unions and collective bargaining.

In 1916 Goodwin moved to Trail, British Columbia, where he worked as a “smelterman” for the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada Limited. He then entered politics and ran as a candidate of the Socialist Party of Canada in Trail’s “provincial election of 1916″. On December 18, 1916 Goodwin was elected “full-time secretary” of the Trail Mill and Smeltermen’s Union. The following year he was elected vice-president of the British Columbia Federation of Labour, and president of both the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, District 6 and the Trail Trades and Labour Council.

Goodwin was a conscientious objector of World War I, openly stating his disdain that the working class were now being employed to kill each other; in war. Goodwin complied with the law and signed up for the draft, but was not conscripted after a medical examination found him temporarily unfit for military duty; saying he suffered “black lung” and bad teeth. Shortly after, Goodwin led a strike at the Trail lead/zinc smelter in 1917; bargaining for a standard eight-hour workday. Amidst the strike, Goodwin was notified that his temporary status had been changed and that he was now “fit for duty”.

As a pacifist opposed to the war, Goodwin fled conscription into the Cumberland bush where he avoided capture for some months; with the aid of his fellow workers from Cumberland. Hunted by the police for evading the draft, Goodwin camped in the hills surrounding Cumberland. On July 27, 1918, he was shot and killed by Dominion Police Special Constable Dan Campbell.[1] Campbell, who claimed he fired in self-defense, was never tried for the death. Goodwin was given a large funeral, and his death sparked the Vancouver general strike in August 1918.

The Ginger Group, a faction of radical Progressive and Labour Members of Parliament who split in 1924 and advocated socialism, were named after Goodwin. The new highway near Cumberland was briefly named for Goodwin, though the resulting removal of the name signs indicates the continuing controversy over Goodwin’s death and legacy.

Excerpt from: http://www.gvpl.ca/using-the-library/our-collection/local-history/tales-from-the-vault/ginger-goodwin/

Goodwin quickly established himself as a strong, forceful presence on the Trail labour scene. His opponent on the company side was Selwyn Blaylock, in charge of labour relations for Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company (Cominco). Blaylock took a strongly paternalistic attitude to the workers, and was used to being treated with deference. Goodwin’s direct approach was not to his liking. As well, there were the usual workplace problems that Goodwin was all too familiar with: long hours, unhealthy working conditions and numerous others. Under Goodwin the union started moving towards a strike. The main issue was hours of work. The union wanted eight-hour days for all members of the smelter workforce. The company insisted that they had an agreement allowing longer hours. The union strongly disagreed, and on Nov. 15, 1917 the smeltermen walked off the job.

The smeltermen, though, had several obstacles to face. They had no support from the union’s headquarters, and the miners at Rossland, who had been idled by their strike, urged them to return. Moreover mediators had determined that there was an agreement in place for the duration of the war. They urged the men to return, and lobby for legislated eight-hour days. Faced with this opposition, the smeltermen ended their strike in December.

Goodwin, meanwhile, was having trouble with the government. Years of working in mines had made Goodwin a chronically sick man. When the issue of conscription for the war came up in 1917 Goodwin was medically examined and put in category “D”.  That meant he was temporarily unfit, but subject to re-examination later. Suddenly, eleven days into the strike, he received a telegram from the local military tribunal. They ordered him back for re-examination. He was now declared to be in category “A”, fit for fighting. This despite Prime Minister Borden’s statement, six days before, that such men were not to be called up. The union denounced this as highly suspicious.

Goodwin fought his reclassification all the way to the final arbiter, Lyman Duff of the Supreme Court of Canada. Goodwin was too much a pacifist ever to have gone to war, even if he had been healthy. Duff rejected his claim, giving no reasons. Goodwin knew what he had to do. He left for Vancouver Island, and escaped into the wilds west of Cumberland. He was not going to fight.

Goodwin was not alone in his struggle. Conscription was massively unpopular in Canada, and Goodwin had company in the bush. Several other men were also holed up west of Comox Lake. They were helped by local people who smuggled supplies out to them. Even the local constable, Robert Rushford, blinked his eyes at this.

Not so the Dominion Police. This was a special force whose job it was to catch evaders. A small posse of them arrived in Cumberland, headed by Inspector William Devitt. With him was Constable Dan Campbell, formerly of the B.C. Provincial Police. Campbell had been fired from the B.C. Police for extortion. The Dominion Police, faced with manpower shortages, were forced to hire him. Campbell was also a crack shot and a superb outdoorsman, useful in this pursuit.

Policemen had been searching for the evaders since the spring of 1918. Campbell arrived there in early July. He told several people he was going to “get” the deserters. On the morning of July 27th a small group consisting of Devitt, Campbell, and Constable George Roe headed down Comox Lake, guided by trappers Thomas Anderson and George Janes. They went to Alone Mountain at the end of the lake. The trappers left the party, and the policemen headed into the bush. Devitt and Roe took one trail, and Campbell another. At 4:30 p.m. a shot rang out from Campbell’s trail. Devitt and Roe hurried over. They found Goodwin’s lifeless body. Campbell had shot him dead.

Campbell claimed that he had shot in self defence. He said Goodwin was raising a rifle towards him. Devitt ordered Campbell back to Cumberland, to surrender to the Provincial Police. He then attempted to have the body buried at the site. Two undertakers, though, refused the request. When Goodwin’s friends heard about it, they insisted the body be brought out. When it was finally retrieved it was examined, not by either of the Cumberland doctors, but by a doctor brought over from Courtenay. Then a coroner’s inquest was held. The coroner’s jury, though empanelled in a mining town, had no working miners on its panel. After deliberations they came down with a neutral verdict: Albert “Ginger” Goodwin had been shot to death by Constable Dan Campbell.

Next a Preliminary Inquiry was held in Victoria, to see if Campbell should stand trial for manslaughter. The deciding factor in this turned out to be witnesses brought by the prosecution. Five of them testified that Campbell had said he would “get” the evaders “dead or alive”, that they would never get away. One witness said he had said “shot” rather than “get”. On the strength of this the magistrates committed him for trial in higher court.

But by law the final recommendation had to come from a grand jury (this has since been repealed). The proceedings of this body were secret, and no record was kept. They did not detain Campbell for long. On Oct. 1, 1918 they began hearing witnesses. By the next day they were finished, and issued their recommendation: he was not to go to trial. Campbell left a free man.

Excerpt from: http://www.marxist.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=207

After moving to Trail in early 1916 to work as a smelterman, he was unanimously declared the candidate of the Socialist Party of Canada for the Ymir riding in the 1916 election. The socialists of Trail fought a hard campaign in a conservative stronghold. Goodwin traveled around the region organizing meetings and speaking to anyone who would listen. The bourgeois press slandered him ruthlessly. Even as far away as Victoria, the papers denounced Goodwin as a traitor. As expected the Conservative’s James Schofield was re-elected. He won 558 votes out of a total of 1,275. Ginger came in third with 254 votes. This was a very strong showing for the Socialist Party of Canada. No socialist had ever received such strong support in this constituency.

In December of that year Ginger was elected secretary of the Trail Mill & Smeltermen’s Union, Western Federation of Miners Local105. But before he could get into his new role, Ginger and others were off to the annual convention of the BC Federation of Labour. The convention had a strong anti-war mood. Joe Naylor was elected President of the BC Fed and Ginger Goodwin was elected Vice President for the West Kootenay region.

After several months of organizing and agitating in Trail, Goodwin had become a force to be reckoned with. Goodwin and his comrades were able to force concessions from the bosses with mere threats. The smelter had been garnishing the wages of its workers for the war effort; one simple letter hand delivered by Ginger Goodwin threatening a strike was enough to force them to stop. Instead, the bosses set up a voluntary donation account that was run through the bank, not the company, and promised no discrimination against workers who refused to contribute. But in November 1917 Ginger’s latest demand would hit the company like a bomb shell.

The union demanded the eight hour day for all smelter workers. There was no room for maneuvering. Ginger delivered a twenty-four hour ultimatum. Either all the workers of the smelter would get the eight hour day, or they would all take the zero hour day. On 10 November, 1917 1,500 smelter workers walked off the job under the leadership of Ginger Goodwin. The strike took on special significance during the war. The lead and zinc processed there was used to make arms for the war and the strike was being led by a high-profile anti-war activist. Goodwin not only called for an end to the war, but the overthrow of the capitalist system all together. The ruling class was planning to crush Ginger Goodwin.

The Assassination of Ginger Goodwin

On 26 November, Ginger was called before the Trail exemption board. He had previously been declared unfit for military service due to his health problems. An ulcer, bad teeth and tuberculosis would normally be enough to get anyone out of the war, but Ginger was a special case. He was reclassified and declared fit for military service. Although he would launch a lengthy appeal process, this was the beginning of the end for Ginger Goodwin.

A mass meeting of over one thousand workers was held the next day. They loudly protested the persecution of Trail’s most notorious socialist. An appeal was launched by the workers to have union leaders exempted from conscription. Their arguments were sound. They used the same reasoning that was used to exempt employers from conscription: they perform a valuable service to industry. But of course this appeal was flatly denied.

In early December the smelter workers sent an appeal to their international union for support. They were betrayed by their own international. With the US entry into the war, the leaders of the International Union of Mine Mill and Smelter Workers had taken a position in support of the war. They asked their members not to strike for the duration of the war so as not to hurt the war effort. This scandalous betrayal left the workers without strike pay. They heroically fought on, until 20 December when a mass meeting of workers faced the inevitable and voted to return to work.

The smelter workers lost 36 days wages without any strike pay. It was a terrible end to the first strike for the eight hour day in Canadian history. Union activists were blacklisted. Ginger wrote publicly about the blacklist:

“There is a number of men that will not be taken back by the appearance of things, men who had the conviction to fight for the cause of the eight-hour day and who at the time of writing have got it from good authority that they are not wanted any more at the smelter.

Those that are taken back have to sign a pledge to be of good behavior for the duration of the war (Why not life?)…”

Ginger focused on his appeal process. In his final appeal Ginger gave up arguing on health matters and focused his appeal on agitation. He argued that no officials of labour should be taken to war; they were needed at home for benefit of the population. He signed his letter, “Fraternally for Socialism, Albert Goodwin”. It was finally decided on 15 April, and his appeal was rejected.

Ginger failed to report for duty in Victoria. Knowing that sending a man with tuberculosis to the trenches was as good as a death sentence, Ginger went underground. He fled back to Cumberland where a network of supporters kept him supplied. He hid out at the far side of Comox Lake on the banks of the Cruikshanks River along with a few other men resisting conscription. Albert “Ginger” Goodwin was shot dead on the banks of one of his favorite trout streams where he had spent so many days fishing with his friend and comrade Joe Naylor. These so called police constables left Ginger’s body on the forest floor to rot. It wasn’t until July 30 that his friends were able to find Ginger Goodwin’s body and bring it back for burial.

Dan Campbell claimed that he fired in self defense, but this “official” story is now believed by no one. Joe Naylor oversaw the autopsy of his best friend. The coroner’s report showed that the bullet passed first through Ginger’s wrist, then into his neck. It was clear from the angle of the wounds, that Ginger’s hands were raised in the air in surrender when he was shot. Dan Campbell literally got away with murder. He was never punished.

Goodwin’s funeral procession in Cumberland stretched for over a mile. Thousands came out to bid farewell to their fallen comrade. In Vancouver a general strike was called in protest of the murder. On 2 August, 1918, thousands of workers in Vancouver and across Vancouver Island downed tools in Canada’s first General Strike.

I am back!

Not sure whether anybody has been following me the last couple of years but I have not done alot with my blog.

That has changed, and now I am back to post interesting stuff from other bloggers and writers that I am familiar with, as well as post my own thoughts, feelings, rants, and tirades.

Of course having a blog may not be the best thing for me as I don’t speak my mind, or voice my thoughts……MUCH.

Well, I will leave it there for now.

Signed Me

Employee fired after calling in sick to play in softball tournament

Whitten and Lublin | Monday, July 15th, 2013 http://blog.toronto-employmentlawyer.com

A former Telus employee’s termination for lying about being sick and instead taking the day off to play in a softball tournament was recently upheld by the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench.

Jarrod Underwood was a five-year employee of Telus. He asked to get one of his regularly scheduled shifts off in order to play in a softball tournament, but the request was denied because no other employees were available to take his shift. The morning of the tournament, Mr. Underwood told his manager that he would be missing work due to “unforeseen circumstances.” Knowing about the softball tournament and suspicious of his absence due to his prior request to have the day off, the manager went to the ballpark, where he saw Mr. Underwood pitching in the tournament.

When Mr. Underwood’s manager confronted him about the incident, he admitted to playing softball, but claimed that he missed work due to suffering food poisoning. He insisted that, while he was too sick to work, he was well enough to participate in the softball tournament. As a result of the incident, Telus terminated Mr. Underwood’s employment, claiming that the trust relationship had been irreparably damaged by his dishonesty.

The matter was taken to arbitration, where the arbitrator accepted the employee’s explanation that he was too ill to work that day, but that he was still well enough to play softball due to being able to appropriately manage his illness from the ballpark but not the workplace. The arbitrator ordered Telus to reinstate Mr. Underwood with a 30-day suspension. Telus appealed to the Court of Queen’s Bench, which overturned the arbitrator’s decision. The Court found that Mr. Underwood’s version of events defied “logic and common sense,” and ruled that the arbitrator’s conclusion that the employee was actually sick was unreasonable. Given that the employee had lied to his employer about being sick, the trust relationship was indeed irreparably damaged. The Court thus upheld Mr. Underwood’s termination.

This post was guest-authored by Nathan Rayan