BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Lancaster House - ECPv6.15.4//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://lancasterhouse.com
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Lancaster House
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/Halifax
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0300
TZNAME:ADT
DTSTART:20240310T060000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0300
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:AST
DTSTART:20241103T050000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20240613
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20240615
DTSTAMP:20260422T125026
CREATED:20231109T142132Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240723T155130Z
UID:11145-1718236800-1718409599@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Calgary Labour Arbitration and Policy Conference: Current practices\, emerging trends
DESCRIPTION:Sponsored by:We would like to thank Field Law for their generous sponsorship of the 42nd Annual Labour Arbitration and Policy Conference presented by Lancaster House. \nThe Westin Calgary - Discounted Room\nBook by Friday\, May 10\, 2024 \nBook NowCalgary Labour Arbitration and Policy ConferenceConference Co-Chairs\n\n \nKristan McLeod\nUnion Counsel\nChivers Carpenter Lawyers \n\n\n \nLaura Mensch\nEmployer Counsel\nBorden Ladner Gervais LLP \n\n\n \nKaren Scott\nArbitrator \n\n\nConference Advisory Committee\n\n \nE. Wayne Benedict\nUnion Counsel\nMcGown Cook Barristers & Solicitors\n\n\n \nJames Casey\nArbitrator/Mediator Labour\nArbitration + Mediation \n\n\n \nStephanie Henry\nEmployer Counsel\nBennett Jones LLP \n\n\n \nDavid Lardner\nUnion Representative\, Disputes and Arbitration\nAlberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) \n\n\n \nErin Ludwig\nAssociate General Counsel\nLabour and Employment Legal and Privacy\nAlberta Health Services (AHS) \n\n\n \nKathryn Oviatt\nChief of the Commission and Tribunals\, Alberta Human Rights Commission \n\n\nThursday\, June 13\, 2024Workshop*Workshops sold separately from stand-alone conference. \nBreakfast: 8:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. M.T. \nConcurrent Workshops:\n(The schedule below will run concurrently for all three workshops until 4pm) \nWorkshop 1: Disabilities That Elude Diagnosis: Accommodating employees with poorly understood conditions\n\n\n \nAshton Butler\nEmployer Counsel\nMLT Aikins \n\n\n \nDr. Charl Els\nPsychiatrist\, Addiction Specialist\, and Occupational Physician \nClinical Professor\nDepartment of Psychiatry and Department of Medicine\nUniversity of Alberta \n\n\n \nSophie Purnell\nEmployee Counsel\nPurnell Employment Law \n\n\n \nAnne Wallace\nArbitrator/Mediator \n\n\nChallenges often arise in accommodating employees with conditions that cannot be identified by a clear diagnostic test or that are not yet well-understood within the medical community. In this session\, expert panelists will examine key legal principles and best practices for accommodating employees with these conditions. Speakers will address: \n\nExamples of common medical conditions that elude diagnosis\, or that are considered “diagnoses of exclusion” (including “long COVID”);\nLegal limits on the type and extent of medical information that employers can request from employees;\nHow to effectively formulate requests for medical information where an employee’s condition cannot be confirmed using a clinician’s diagnostic test;\nHow to respond when there is a lack of available medical practitioners with the requisite knowledge or expertise to assess and attest to an employee’s condition;\nHow to approach employees/union members about needed information with sensitivity;\nHow stereotypes and stigmas associated with such medical conditions can contribute to the challenge of providing accommodation;\nTypes of accommodations that may be of assistance to an employee suffering from persistent or chronic symptoms;\nWhether an employer can discipline or dismiss an employee who is frequently absent\, underperforming\, or exhibiting atypical workplace behaviours but who asserts that it is due to an as-yet undiagnosed disability; and\nUnderstanding when undue hardship has been established and the duty to accommodate is at an end.\n\nWorkshop 2: Reading it Right: Essential and emerging principles of collective agreement interpretation \n\n\n \nDavid Lardner\nUnion Representative\, Disputes and Arbitration\nAlberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) \n\n\n \nChris S. Monfette\nEmployer Counsel\nNeuman Thompson \n\n\n \nLeanne Young\, K.C.\nLegal Counsel\,\nChartered Arbitrator\, Mediator and Adjudicator\nResolve ADR \n\n\nAn understanding of the principles of contract interpretation is indispensable for anyone involved in the negotiation or administration of a collective agreement\, from front-line managers and union representatives to advocates in the arbitration process. The ground rules of collective agreement interpretation have seen a notable shift in recent years. While the traditional techniques of reading a collective agreement\, such asthe “plain meaning” rule\, still play a central role\, arbitrators increasingly utilizeuse a more “contextual” approach that takes into account relevant background in order to determine the parties’ intent. In this workshop\, experienced counsel will equip participants with the knowledge they need to deal effectively with the wide array of interpretation disputes that arise in a unionized setting. \n\nWhat are the most commonly applied rules of collective agreement interpretation?\nWhat is the difference between the “plain meaning” approach and a purposive approach?\nWhen can evidence of past practice or negotiating history be used as an aid to interpretation?\nHow do arbitrators reconcile negotiated contract language and the contrary provisions of employment-related statutes\, e.g. human rights and employment standards legislation?\nWhat is “contextual evidence\,” as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Sattva case? In what circumstances can such evidence be admitted and relied upon to shed light on the meaning of a disputed clause?\nHow has the use of the “contextual” approach changed the way in which established rules of interpretation are applied?\nWhat are the limits of contextual evidence as an interpretive tool?\nHow have arbitrators in recent cases utilized contextual evidence to resolve disputes about the proper interpretation and application of a collective agreement provision?\n\nWorkshop 3: Denial\, Defensiveness\, and Personality Disorders: Dealing with difficult accommodations \n\n\n \nShelly Bischoff\nFounder & Director\nPtolemy & Associates Inc. \n\n\n \nMonica Bokenfohr\nEmployer Counsel\nNeuman Thompson \n\n\n \nCherie Langlois-Klassen\nUnion Counsel\nBlair Chahley Klassen \n\n\n \nDr. Perry Sirota\nClinical & Forensic Psychologist\nSirota Psychological Services \n\n\nAccommodating employees with disabilities that impair their judgment\, perception\, and ability to cooperate can be challenging. Unfortunately\, mental health disabilities\, such as mood disorders\, can often impact the very abilities necessary for an individual to engage in the accommodation process. \nWorking through interactive exercises and realistic scenarios with the guidance of experts\, participants will develop the knowledge and skills necessary to: \n\ndevelop an understanding of how common disabilities may impede a worker’s ability to participate in the accommodation process;\ndemonstrate effective communication skills when interacting with resistant or uncooperative employees;\nunderstand responsibilities surrounding the duty to inquire\, obtaining medical records\, and related privacy legislation;\ncomply with union and management legal obligations when workers are unwilling or unable to participate in the accommodation process; and\nidentify when the threshold of undue hardship is reached.\n\n\n\n\n\nWorkshop Schedule\n\n\nIntroductory remarks: 9:00 a.m. – 9:10 a.m. M.T.\n\n\nWorkshop: 9:10 a.m. – 10:25 a.m. M.T.\n\n\nMorning break: 10:25 a.m. – 10:40 a.m. M.T.\n\n\nWorkshop: 10:40 a.m. – 11:55 a.m. M.T.\n\n\nLunch: 11:55 a.m. – 1:05 p.m. M.T.\n\n\nWorkshop: 1:05 p.m. – 2:20 p.m. M.T.\n\n\nAfternoon Break: 2:20 p.m. – 2:35 p.m. M.T.\n\n\nWorkshop: 2:35 p.m – 4:00 p.m M.T.\n\n\nCocktail networking reception: 5:00 p.m – 7:00 p.m M.T.\n\n\nCo-chair remarks and introduction of keynote: 7:00 p.m – 7:05 p.m M.T.\n\n\n\nKeynote - The Honourable Chief Justice Ritu Khullar - 7:10 p.m. – 7:40 p.m. M.T.\n\n\n \nRitu Khullar\nThe Honourable Chief Justice Ritu Khullar \n\n\nEvening Plenary: Arbitrating AI: Debating the strengths and limitations of AI in labour relations - 7:45 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. M.T.\n\n\n \nWilson Chan\nEmployer Counsel\nMathews Dinsdale & Clark LLP \n\n\n \nNatalia Makuch\nUnion Counsel\nChivers Carpenter Lawyers \n\n\n \nKelly Williams-Whitt\nArbitrator/Mediator\nProfessor\, Human Resources and Labour Relations\nDean\, Faculty of Business\, Communication Studies and Aviation\, Mount Royal University \n\n\nGiven the lack of Canadian arbitration decisions on the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) to select and manage employees\, this session will provide employers and unions with the best available insight into how grievances against such uses of AI would be mounted\, defended\, and decided. Experienced union and management counsel will join an arbitrator to discuss a union challenge to algorithmic management drawn from US caselaw and a challenge to a program designed to vet job candidates. Specific issues to be addressed include: \n\nWhat principles in existing arbitral jurisprudence or legislative provisions could be invoked to challenge an employer’s use of algorithmic management (i.e. use of AI and data to manage employees)?\nCan employers rely on management rights to justify the use of AI to evaluate employee performance and manage employees?\nWhat arguments for and against the use of algorithmic management would arbitrators in Alberta find most compelling?\nWhat legal concerns are raised when an employer uses AI to assess candidates’ suitability for positions?\nWhat privacy concerns are raised by using AI to evaluate job applicants based on their internet activity?\n\nFriday\, June 14\, 2024Breakfast: 8:00 a.m. – 8:45 a.m. M.T. \nPlenary 2 - Current and Critical: Major developments in legislation and caselaw - 8:45 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. M.T.\n\n\n \nGreg Francis\nArbitrator and Mediator \n\n\n \nMaurice Dransfeld\nEmployer Counsel\nMcLennan Ross LLP \n\n\n \nDana Christianson\nUnion Lawyer\nSeveny Scott Lawyers \n\n\nIn this session\, experts will examine recent significant developments in federal and provincial labour law. Panelists will address the latest cases on topics such as: \n\ndiscrimination\, harassment\, and accommodation;\ngovernment intervention in collective bargaining;\nprivacy;\ndiscipline;\ncontracting out\, statutory freeze issues\, and illegal strikes; and\nkey issues at interest arbitration\, including inflation\, recruitment and retention\, minimum wage increases.\n\nPanelists will also discuss recent legislative initiatives\, such as: \n\nFederal legislation to ban the use of strike replacement workers;\nThe recent report of the Employment Equity Act Review Task Force and related changes to the Act;\n\n\nLimiting the importation of goods involving the use of forced labour and child labour in international supply chains; and\nThe impact of Alberta’s recently introduced Public Sector Employer Amendment Act\, 2023.\n\nFinal selection of topics will take place in the weeks leading up to the conference\, ensuring coverage of the latest and most important developments. \nMorning break: 10:00 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. M.T. \nPlenary 3 - Off-Duty\, Off-Base? Balancing employees’ freedom of speech and employers' interests - 10:15 a.m. – 11:20 a.m. M.T.\n\n\n \nMelissa Luhtanen\nSenior Legal Counsel\nAlberta Human Rights Commission \n\n\n \nKelly Nicholson\nEmployer Counsel\nField Law \n\n\n \nDan Scott\nPartner\nSeveny Scott \n\n\nTensions sometimes arise between employee free speech and an employer’s duty to ensure a safe and respectful workplace. How can these arguably competing rights and obligations be balanced? In this session\, a panel of experts will address these questions: \n\nWhat is the line between safeguarding employee free speech and ensuring a respectful and safe work environment? Do employees have the right to express their views on potentially controversial and/or political matters at work?\nCan employers discipline employees for private statements and/or expressions made outside the workplace?\nTo what extent will arbitrators consider Charter rights and values such as freedom of expression in the context of off-duty conduct?\nWhat is the extent of a union’s duty to represent members who face work-related consequences for their potentially polarizing beliefs? When will a union’s decision not to represent a member constitute a breach of the duty of fair representation?\n\nBreak: 11:20 a.m. – 11:35 a.m. M.T. \nConcurrent session: 11:35 a.m. – 12:35 p.m. M.T.\nPick 1 of 3 \nConcurrent 1: Investigations under the Magnifying Glass: Examining current practices and recent caselaw\nConcurrent 2: Disciplinary Dilemmas: When is coaching discipline? When is union representation required? When is there a right to remain silent?\nConcurrent 3: Neurodiversity at Work: Strategies for creating and fostering inclusive workplaces \nLunch: 12:35 p.m. – 1:45 p.m. M.T. \nConcurrent session continued: 1:45 p.m. – 2:45 p.m. M.T.\nPick 1 of 3 \nConcurrent 1: Investigations under the Magnifying Glass: Examining current practices and recent caselaw\nConcurrent 2: Disciplinary Dilemmas: When is coaching discipline? When is union representation required? When is there a right to remain silent?\nConcurrent 3: Neurodiversity at Work: Strategies for creating and fostering inclusive workplaces \nAfternoon break: 2:45 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. M.T. \nPlenary 4 - Is it Harassment or Not? An interactive panel with case studies and scenarios - 3:00 p.m. – 4:15 p.m. M.T.\n\n\n \nKait Carey\nLawyer and Workplace Investigator\nSouthern Butler Price \n\n\n \nElla Henry\nCounsel\nCanadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) \n\n\n \nJackie Laviolette\nEmployer Counsel\nMatthews Dinsdale & Clark LLP \n\n\nIn Alberta\, workplace harassment is defined as “any single incident or repeated incidents of objectionable or unwelcome conduct\, comment\, bullying or action by a person that the person knows or ought reasonably to know will or would cause offence or humiliation to a worker\, or adversely affects the worker’s health and safety.” In many instances conduct or comments will clearly meet this definition. In many instances impugned conduct or comments will clearly meet this definition\, but in other cases debate may arise as to whether the alleged harasser ought reasonably to have known that certain comments or conduct would be unwelcome. \n\nShould a complainant’s subjective feelings of humiliation or offence be determinative of whether certain conduct constitutes harassment? If not\, why not?\nWhat role does a complainant’s lived experience as someone of a particular gender\, race\, or ethnicity play in determining whether certain conduct should be reasonably seen to be offensive? How might a decision-maker’s unconscious bias interfere in the analysis of whether conduct could reasonably be seen to be offensive or humiliating?\nDoes workplace culture play any role in determining whether conduct ought reasonably to have been known to be offensive?\nIs the analysis of whether conduct constitutes harassment affected by a friendship or previous romantic relationships between complainant and respondent? What about power imbalances or lack thereof?\nHow is the reasonableness of management action assessed to determine whether or not it constitutes harassment?\n\nConcurrent SessionsConcurrent 1 - Investigations under the Magnifying Glass: Examining current practices and recent caselaw\n\n\n \nAlison Adam\nEmployer Counsel\nMcLennan Ross LLP \n\n\n \nDev Chankasingh\nLabour Arbitrator\, Mediator\, Workplace Investigator\, Employment Adjudicator\nDev A. Chankasingh Professional Corporation \n\n\n \nDavid Mercer\nUnion Counsel\nNickerson Roberts Holinski & Mercer \n\n\nIn this session\, expert panelists will examine recent caselaw addressing workplace investigations and will explore key principles and best practices in conducting fair\, adequate\, and effective investigations into human rights-related allegations. The panel will address questions including: \n\nWhat lessons can be learned from recent cases as to what constitutes a fair and adequate investigation process? What procedural flaws have been found to render an investigation unfair or inadequate?\nWhen is retaining a third-party investigator necessary? What other alternatives are possible?\nCan the grounds for an investigation be expanded after the investigation has already been commenced – for example\, if an investigation reveals issues of systemic discrimination?\nWhat are best practices for countering unconscious and implicit bias and otherwise ensuring stereotypes and discrimination do not impact the investigatory process? How should investigatory meetings be approached where the person being interviewed has or is suspected to have a disability?\nHow much latitude do employers have to order investigations into off-duty conduct? May workplace investigators demand to examine employees’ personal devices\, such as laptops or cellphones which employees use exclusively or primarily for personal purposes?\nHow should employers and unions approach investigations into workplace conduct which may have a criminal element?\nWhat legal avenues are available to employees who wish to challenge what they believe to be an unfair or improper investigation into their human rights allegations?\n\nConcurrent 2 - Disciplinary Dilemmas: When is coaching discipline? When is union representation required? When is there a right to remain silent?\n\n\n \nDan Bokenfohr\nEmployer Counsel\nMcLennan Ross LLP \n\n\n \nGordon Nekolaichuk\nVice-Chair\nAlberta Labour Relations Board \n\n\n \nKaren Thibault\nUnion Representative\nDisputes and Arbitrations\nAlberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) \n\n\nRights and responsibilities differ when engaging in job “coaching” or performance management as opposed to imposing formal discipline. In this session\, expert speakers will examine key issues pertaining to disciplinary processes\, addressing questions such as: \n\nHow can parties clearly differentiate job coaching and training\, performance management\, and discipline? When and to what extent can management take action to improve worker performance without amounting to a formal warning or disciplinary act?\nWhat circumstances trigger an employee’s right to union representation? How have arbitrators distinguished meetings or discussions which are merely “investigatory” or otherwise non-disciplinary from those which are disciplinary and attract procedural protections?\nDo employees have a right to remain silent in investigative meetings where they reasonably believe a disclosure may expose them to discipline? May employees be disciplined solely due to their decision to remain silent? When employees are or may be subject to criminal charges in relation to the factual circumstances underpinning an investigatory or disciplinary meeting\, how can those employees protect themselves against self-incrimination?\nWhat ought an employer do to ensure fairness toward an employee in the course of a disciplinary meeting or process? Where an employer fails to follow procedural requirements in relation to a disciplinary meeting\, will this impact an arbitrator’s willingness to uphold a disciplinary measure?\nWhere a union representative participates in a disciplinary meeting\, what is the scope of that representative’s role?\nHow may an employee’s conduct during a disciplinary meeting impact an arbitrator’s assessment as to whether to uphold the discipline?\n\nConcurrent 3 - Neurodiversity at Work: Strategies for creating and fostering inclusive workplaces\n\n\n \nJake Axelrod\nUnion Counsel\nNugent Law Office \n\n\n \nApril Kosten\nEmployer Counsel\nDentons \n\n\n \nSarah Taylor\nProject Manager\nSpectrum Advantage\nChief Executive Officer\nNext Level ASD Consulting \n\n\n \nTonie Minhas\nProject Manager\, Neuroinclusion Services\nAUTICON \n\n\nOn a societal level\, there is increasing recognition that neurodivergence is a strength\, not a deficit\, and building inclusive\, neurodivergent workplaces makes a positive impact. In this panel\, experts will examine how employers can effectively recruit\, retain\, and accommodate neurodivergent employees\, and how unions can support their neurodivergent membership. Specifically\, the panel will address the following: \n\nWhat does neurodivergence mean? What should workplace parties know about specific conditions such as Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)\, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD)\, and learning disabilities falling under the umbrella of neurodivergence? Do these conditions share any similarities? How might they affect an employee’s work performance?\nHow can businesses benefit from hiring neurodivergent employees?\nWhat measures can employers put in place to effectively recruit neurodivergent employees? How can employers support/accommodate neurodivergent applicants throughout the recruitment process?\nConsidering the emphasis on self-identification in the neurodiverse community\, must employees who identify as neurodivergent provide evidence of a medical diagnosis to access initiatives designed to recruit diverse employees? How should employers respond to these disclosures when they occur?\nHow do common stereotypes hinder the inclusion and accommodation of neurodivergent employees in the workplace? What can be done to guard against these stereotypes?\nWhat are the signs an employee may be struggling with work performance or workplace relationships because of a neurological difference such as ASD or ADHD? When does the employer have a duty to inquire as to whether the employee in question requires accommodation?\nWhat are some examples of appropriate and effective accommodations for neurodivergent employees?\nWhat accommodations should unions provide to neurodivergent members accessing union services and using union processes?\nWhat kind of medical information can employers request from employees seeking accommodation on the basis of neurodivergence? Can a detailed neuropsychological evaluation report be required? How often\, if ever\, should updated medical information be requested from a neurodivergent employee\, who\, by definition\, has a lifelong condition?\n\nCPDConference CPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 7.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 7.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nThe Calgary Labour Arbitration and Policy Conference has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 7.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nWorkshop CPD\n\n\nEach Pre-Conference Workshop has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 5.3 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\n \n\nEach Pre-Conference Workshop has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 5.3 Continuing Professional Development hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/calgary-labour-arbitration-and-policy-conference-2024/
LOCATION:The Westin Calgary\, 320 4 Avenue Southwest\, Calgary\, Alberta\, T2P 2S6\, Canada
CATEGORIES:Conference,Labour Arbitration and Policy Conference
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/calgary-lac-header.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR