(Montreal) A complaint by a union concerning the negotiation of telework parameters with the employer was dismissed by the Administrative Labor Tribunal.
The case opposed the Union of Professionals of the Government of Quebec (SPGQ) and the Autorité des marchés financiers as the employer.
The union contested the unilateral implementation by the employer of its policy aimed at returning to work in hybrid mode, without negotiating the parameters with it. He alleged interference with his activities.
It is important to note that in this case, a telework pilot project had already been implemented for three teams before the pandemic, i.e. in April 2019, for a period of six months. It had even been renewed.
The AMF argued that telework is a method of organizing work that falls under its management rights.
But the SPGQ had filed a complaint in court, alleging that this was an obstacle to its activities. He also criticized the sending of a press release in this context, alleging that the employer had thus flouted its monopoly of representation.
According to the union, the employer “had however recognized its exclusive role by negotiating with it the measures related to telework, both by the implementation of a pilot project and by a letter of agreement for the duration of the pandemic”.
But the Administrative Labor Tribunal rejected the complaints of the SPGQ.
He points out in particular that “the collective agreement does not in any way deal with teleworking nor does it contain a letter of agreement on this subject”.
He concludes that the AMF did not seek to hinder the activities of the SPGQ. “There is no proof that union representation could have been undermined by the AMF’s communications or of any intention on the part of the latter to ignore the SPGQ, to circumvent it or even to hinder its activities. »
It should be noted that the union had also filed a grievance relating to telework, but from a different angle than that pleaded before the Administrative Labor Tribunal, which was a complaint of obstruction. At the time of the Tribunal’s decision, shortly before Christmas, the parties were awaiting the arbitrator’s decision on this matter.
The Court also refers to it: “it is not for the Court to determine whether the teleworking policy falls under the right of management or whether, on the contrary, it establishes or modifies the working conditions, since that is the exclusive of the grievance arbitrator. Moreover, this misunderstanding was the subject of a grievance and the parties are awaiting the decision of the arbitrator seized of the case”.
Friday, the national SPGQ was not able to say if, since, this decision affecting one of its local unions had been made.