All three parties have agreed on the basic facts of the case.

Quinton, a registered practical nurse, worked at Restful Care Home, where the employees were members of a local of the Provincial Careworkers Union. On February 15, Quinton was the nurse in charge of the night shift. On that night, as part of her regular duties, she examined one of the residents. This patient, who had Alzheimer’s disease and was unaware of her surroundings, had a mole on her back with long hairs growing from it. When Quinton examined this patient, she noticed that someone had braided the hairs. The home’s rules required Quinton to report events such as this, but while planning to do so, she tied a green ribbon to the braid as “a little fun” to amuse the health care aide who she thought would be examining the patient later.

Quinton forgot to report the event and did not remove the braid and ribbon, which were discovered on the next shift by another employee. This employee also happened to be the shop steward. 

The shop steward reported the event to the home’s management. Quinton was allowed to work her next scheduled shift, but was then suspended indefinitely pending an investigation. On February 20, management phoned Quinton to discuss the incident. Quinton stated that she was responsible for tying the ribbon to the hair, and took responsibility for not reporting the event as required. She also apologized for her conduct. 

On February 21, Quinton was called to a meeting with management. A union representative was present at this meeting. Quinton was told that the issue would go to the vice-president of human resources of the company that owned Restful Care Home. The next day, Quinton’s employment was terminated on the grounds that she had failed to report the braided hair and that, by her own admission, she had tied the ribbon on the hair. The company stated that these actions, in its view, constituted patient abuse.

On February 23, Quinton filed a grievance challenging her dismissal. On March 8, the union and the company met to discuss the grievance. On March 13, the union called Quinton to advise her that the employer had offered a proposal to settle the grievance. The College of Nurses had not yet been advised of the incident, and the company proposed that if Quinton were to resign her employment, the College would not be notified. Moreover, if Quinton were to resign, the health care aide involved in the incident, who had also been terminated, would get her job back. The union advised Quinton that if the case went to arbitration, the company might be sued by the patient’s family and the College would automatically be notified.

On March 14, Quinton received a letter from the College notifying her that it had received a complaint from the company about the incident. The letter was dated March 8. Quinton then contacted the union and said she felt that the company was, in essence, bargaining in bad faith and that she wished to take the case to arbitration. 

On March 15, a union representative, Lisa Iwaki, sent a letter to the employer stating that it wished to “proceed with the above-noted grievance.” The collective agreement states that if the parties are unable to resolve a grievance regarding termination of employment within five days of the termination, the matter may be pursued to arbitration.

On March 21, a different union representative, Ken Dumont, wrote to Quinton to state that the union was withdrawing her grievance. Dumont stated in the letter that, after reviewing the circumstances involved and the nature of the incident, “I don’t believe the union would be able to successfully argue your case before an arbitrator.” On April 10, Quinton, following the union’s internal process, appealed this decision in writing to the president of the local. The union did not respond. 

In September and October, the College of Nurses conducted its review of Quinton’s conduct. On October 15, it wrote a non-disciplinary caution letter to Quinton. Quinton sent a copy of this letter to Dumont on November 23 and requested that, in view of this decision, the union attempt to get her job back. Dumont wrote to the company and asked it to reconsider its decision to terminate Quinton, but the company refused. The union advised Quinton that it had no further options. Quinton fi led her complaint against the union with the labour relations board the following February.

The board noted that Dumont and Iwaki are no longer employed with the union.

The Union’s Position

The union argues that Quinton had waited too long to file her complaint with the labour relations board and therefore her complaint should be dismissed for delay. The union also argues that, in addition to the reasons it had previously given for withdrawing the grievance, it feels that patient

abuse is a sensitive issue and that its relationship with the employer would have been damaged if Quinton’s case proceeded to arbitration. The union also states that Quinton’s response to the charges against her was unacceptable because, as part of her response, she relied on the fact that the patient was unaware of what had happened.

The Complainant’s Position

The complainant states that her delay in fi ling the application was partially due to the actions of the union, including its failure to respond to her appeal of the decision to not proceed to arbitration. She also alleges that the union rejected pursuing her grievance in favour of pursuing a grievance involving another employee’s behaviour in a separate incident. In the complainant’s view, this employee’s behaviour had been much worse than hers, and she alleges that the decision to proceed with this grievance but not hers constituted discrimination on the part of the union.