A friend recently told me about his (manufacturing) workplace where most of the equipment is broken, production lousy and new employees last “sometimes four hours, sometimes a week” but rarely longer than that. He reported that the business owner had recently woken up and hired an independent consultant to take a look and make recommendations for the business. I don’t know if this company has any HR personnel, but many small to medium companies do not have dedicated HR personnel, save and except for payroll, and may have a general manager or owner who is oblivious to what goes on the shop floor. So what are the warning signs of a workplace that needs attention?
The names of people involved in labour arbitration should be disclosed with the arbitrator’s decisions, unless there are compelling reasons not to do so, according to the open-court principle and the public’s interest. The British Columbia Labour Relations Board affirmed the law in a recent review of an arbitrator’s decision. The board also affirmed arbitrators’ discretion to disclose or withhold personal information under the Labour Relations Code and Personal Information Protection Act.
The case arose when a unionized employee was disciplined and the union grieved the punishment. The employee sought to have his name left out from the arbitrator’s decision-or anonymized by using only his initials. The union presented a number of arguments for why grievors’ and witnesses’ names should not be published in arbitration decisions:
- The open court principle does not apply to labour arbitrators, because labour arbitrators are primarily a private dispute mechanism
- Privacy legislation is quasi-constitutional
On April 15, the Ontario Human Rights Commission published a new comprehensive policy entitled Policy on preventing discrimination because of Gender Identity and Gender Expression. According to the Commission, the policy...