Appeals court upholds seniority rights of highway workers

Staff ~ The Telegram
Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

Government ordered to try to reach agreement with union on lost salaries and benefits

The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal has upheld the findings of a Board of Arbitration that found the provincial Department of Transportation and Works violated seniority and recall rights of employees affected by the province's 2005 closure of 13 highway depots.
In a news release, the union representing the workers - the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public and Private Employees (NAPE) - noted that they successfully arbitrated the issue following the 2005 layoffs. The provincial government took the case to the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court trial division which upheld the arbitrated ruling, and government further took the case to the province's highest court that released its ruling today.
"In a unanimous decision, the court of appeal upheld the board of arbitration's finding that the department's actions violated the seniority provisions of the MOS Collective Agreement," said NAPE president Carol Furlong. "The court has directed the two parties to attempt to reach an agreement on lost salary and benefits and, if no agreement is reached, the matter of lost salary and benefits can be remitted to the Board of arbitration for resolution.
"This award addresses the monetary aspect of the grievance, but even more importantly, the court recognized the need to protect the principle of seniority."
More coverage and reaction in Thursday's print edition.

Organizations: Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Board of Arbitration, Department of Transportation and Works Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public and Private Employees

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • Will we reach
    July 02, 2010 - 13:30

    Tack on another few million to Danny's boondoggles and another loss in the court case column.

  • I C Clearly
    July 02, 2010 - 13:29

    Yet another lost court case. No odds to government, they're paying for their mistakes with our tax dollars. I bet that there's some happy lawyers though.

  • John
    July 02, 2010 - 13:17

    Another example of unions having all the rights and the employer nothing at all. I wonder how many of the employees that were subject to bumping rights would have just said no, it's too far for me to go , I want to stay with my family etc. etc. etc. Not many of them but they'll be quick to say yes now so they'll get the $$$ they will have comming to them. The province should take this to the Supreme Court of Canada but the judges are too liberal and will probably side with the union anyway. DOWN WITH UNIONS.

  • Will we reach
    July 01, 2010 - 20:17

    Tack on another few million to Danny's boondoggles and another loss in the court case column.

  • I C Clearly
    July 01, 2010 - 20:16

    Yet another lost court case. No odds to government, they're paying for their mistakes with our tax dollars. I bet that there's some happy lawyers though.

  • John
    July 01, 2010 - 19:58

    Another example of unions having all the rights and the employer nothing at all. I wonder how many of the employees that were subject to bumping rights would have just said no, it's too far for me to go , I want to stay with my family etc. etc. etc. Not many of them but they'll be quick to say yes now so they'll get the $$$ they will have comming to them. The province should take this to the Supreme Court of Canada but the judges are too liberal and will probably side with the union anyway. DOWN WITH UNIONS.