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:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/New_York
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20240310T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20241103T060000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Halifax:20241008T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Halifax:20241008T160000
DTSTAMP:20260405T205215
CREATED:20240424T141221Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240918T195842Z
UID:12993-1728390600-1728403200@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Tackling Workplace Impairment: Identifying causes\, addressing risks\, providing accommodation
DESCRIPTION:Speakers\n\n \nNorm Keith\nPartner\, Employment & Labour Law\, KPMG Law LLP\nKPMG in Canada \n\n\n \nKelly VanBuskirk\nPartner\nLawson Creamer Lawyers \n\n\n \nDan Demers\nDirector of Business Development\nCannAmm Occupational Testing Services \n\n\nTuesday\, October 8\, 2024Half-Day Virtual WorkshopUse of alcohol\, cannabis\, and illicit substances has increased significantly as Canadians cope with mental health challenges and social isolation. In this virtual workshop\, experts will discuss recent cases on drug and alcohol testing\, fitness-for-duty assessments\, suitable accommodations\, and disciplinary sanctions\, addressing: \n\nWhat constitutes reasonable cause to justify alcohol and drug testing? Can the mere fact that a worker smells of cannabis or alcohol justify administering a reasonable cause test?\nWhat are some recent examples of treatment or monitoring mechanisms that have been found to be violations of privacy rights or excessively intrusive?\nWhat do recent decisions tell us about the circumstances required to justify post-incident testing? What qualifies as a “significant” incident that would be sufficiently serious to warrant an invasive drug or alcohol test? How does this analysis apply in the case of a near-miss incident?\nWhat must an employer demonstrate aside from the risk of residual impairment in order to establish that accommodation in a safety-sensitive position or workplace would constitute undue hardship?\nDo recent cases provide guidance on how to conduct an individualized assessment to determine whether an employee is fit for duty?\nTo what extent will an employer be required to accommodate an employee who fails to disclose or denies having an issue with substance use?\nWhere do recent cases draw the line on accommodating relapses\, ruling that any further obligation to tolerate relapses would amount to undue hardship?\nOn what grounds have arbitrators recently overturned last-chance agreements\, ruling that a violation of their terms is not sufficient to establish undue hardship?\nWhat factors do adjudicators consider when determining appropriate disciplinary penalties for violations of workplace drug and alcohol policies?\n\nCPDCPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 3.1 Continuing Professional Development hours per session.\n\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR BC & Yukon for 3.16 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved for Continuing Professional Development 3.1 hours per session under Category A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Nova Scotia for 3.1 Continuing Professional Development hours per session.\n\n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Colombia for 3.1 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 3.1 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nCPD for Members of the Law Society of Ontario: 3.1 Substantive Hours; 0 Professionalism Hours\, per session.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may count this program for 3.1 Continuing Professional Development hours\, per session.\n\n\n\n\nAdditional InformationRegistration Fee – Single Attendee\nLive workshop\, video\, and MP3 bundle – $920Live workshop – $575Video and MP3 – $575 \n(Please note\, bundles are designed for a single attendee\, please contact Customer Service for multi-user pricing. Registrations must be paid in advance of the webinar) \nPlease contact us by email\, or by phone at (416) 977-6618\, for discount pricing for additional participants and group orders. \nRegistration Information\nThe video recording\, MP3 file\, and materials are available for download and viewing one business day after the live workshop. After purchasing\, you will receive an e-mail with instructions on how to access and download the video recording\, MP3 file\, and materials.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/tackling-workplace-impairment/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Conference
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/workplace-impairment.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Halifax:20241011T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Halifax:20241011T160000
DTSTAMP:20260405T205215
CREATED:20240111T161714Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240913T165509Z
UID:11298-1728649800-1728662400@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Interest Arbitration Police Services Workshop: Current issues\, proven practices
DESCRIPTION:Speakers\n\n \nChris Albertyn\nArbitrator \n\n\n \nTom Roper K.C.\nLabour Relations Counsel \n\n\n \nNini Jones\nLabour Relations Counsel \n\n\nFriday\, October 11\, 2024In the police services sector\, if negotiations result in an impasse\, wages and working conditions are determined by labour arbitrators rather than by strike or lockout. In this virtual workshop\, seasoned experts will address key issues and trends in interest arbitration in the police services sector\, as reflected in the decisions of leading arbitrators across Canada. \nAttendees can expect to learn principles and practices relating to the following: \n\nSelecting an arbitrator\nPreparing for mediation and arbitration\nPresenting briefs and documents at arbitration\nExamining alternative formats including conventional arbitration\, med-arb\, arb-med\, final offer selection\, and first contract arbitration\nThe criteria that arbitrators apply including replication/comparability\, demonstrated need and total compensation\nThe treatment of substantive issues\, such as wage determination\, impact of inflation\, staffing standards\, contracting out\, appropriate benefit levels\, etc.\nThe treatment of process issues\, including ground rules\, package bargaining\, effect of pattern-setting settlements and awards\, status of unratified settlements\, etc.\nEffective remedies\, including interim awards\, final orders\, enforcement and judicial review\n\nThe emphasis will be on practical advice. Up-to-date materials will be provided with case summaries\, overviews and analyses prepared by Lancaster’s legal staff. \nWho should attend? The program is designed for: \n\nHR directors\, professionals and executives\nPolice chiefs\nUnion officers\, representatives\, advocates\nUnion and management negotiators and negotiating committee members\nLabour lawyers/consultants\nArbitrators\, mediators and adjudicators\nDeputy police chiefs\n\nCPDWorkshop CPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 3.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved for Continuing Professional Development 3.5 hours under Category A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\nCPD for Members of the Law Society of Ontario: 3.5 Substantive Hours; 0 Professionalism Hours.\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Colombia for 3.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may count this program for 3.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may count this program for 3.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/interest-arbitration-police-services-workshop-current-issues-proven-practices/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Conference,Workshop
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/interest-arbitration-police-services-2024-2.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20241016
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20241019
DTSTAMP:20260405T205215
CREATED:20240214T201811Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20241009T155744Z
UID:12304-1729036800-1729295999@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Ottawa Labour Law Conference
DESCRIPTION:OverviewThe Ottawa Labour Law Conference is an annual event that serves as a vital forum for professionals\, academics\, and policymakers in the field of labor law. This conference gathers together experts and practitioners from across Canada and beyond to engage in meaningful discussions\, share insights\, and explore the latest developments in labor law and employment relations. With a focus on fostering dialogue and collaboration\, the conference provides a platform for attendees to gain a deeper understanding of the ever-evolving legal landscape that shapes labor relations and worker rights. It plays a pivotal role in shaping the future of labor law in Canada by facilitating the exchange of knowledge\, best practices\, and innovative ideas among those dedicated to advancing workers’ rights and the broader field of labor law. \nConference Co-Chairs\n\n \nWassim Garzouzi\nUnion Counsel\nRavenLaw LLP \n\n\n \nJudith Parisien\nEmployer Counsel\nFasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP\n\n\n \nChris Rootham\nBoard Member\nFederal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (FPSLREB) \n\n\nConference Advisory Committee\n\n \nJena Montgomery\nCounsel\nTreasury Board Secretariat Legal Services\nDepartment of Justice \n\n\n \nOdessa O’Dell\nEmployer Counsel\nBorden Ladner Gervais LLP \n\n\n \nJennifer Duff\nUnion Counsel\nShields Hunt Duff Strachan \n\n\n \nAaron Lemkow\nLegal Counsel\nOntario Nurses’ Association (ONA) \n\n\nWednesday\, October 16\, 2024Workshop*Workshop sold separately from stand-alone conference.After the Investigation: Defusing conflicts and restoring workplace relationships - 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.\n\n\n \nRoger Beaudry\nArbitrator/Mediator and Dispute Prevention/Resolution Consultant\nAptus Conflict Solutions \n\n\n \nMadeline Hall\nLawyer & Investigator\nMortimer Khoraych Workplace Investigations and Restorations \n\n\n \nChristopher Edwards\nEmployer Counsel\nSoloway Wright \n\n\n \nLaura Ross\nBilingual Senior Officer\, Legal Branch\nCanadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) \n\n\nAllegations of bullying or harassment\, breaches of respectful workplace policies\, or other inappropriate behaviour often result in a formal investigation\, culminating in a report with findings and recommendations. However\, the investigation (and the imposition of discipline where misconduct is found to have occurred) may be only the first step in addressing conflicts that have emerged between co-workers. Indeed\, the investigation process itself may have the unintended result of further fracturing the workplace\, by pitting one group of employees against another\, or employees against supervisors. In this workshop\, experienced facilitators will share their expertise with participants in order to provide them with the knowledge and skills needed to restore productive relationships after the investigation\, and to ensure that genuine closure is achieved. \n\nWhat are the most effective approaches to communicating with employees about the investigation while it is ongoing and after it has been completed? How can the employer assure employees that the investigation process is fair and objective\, and that it properly balances the rights and expectations of different groups within the workplace?\nWho is entitled to be apprised of allegations? And of statements by other parties to the investigation?\nWho is entitled to be advised of the conclusions in an investigation report? When might it be advisable to disclose the report’s findings with others in the workplace?\nWhat role does solicitor-client privilege play in the investigation process? Litigation privilege? Common law rules relating to confidentiality?\nIs it beneficial to hold a post-investigation meeting with the affected employees\, or the staff as a whole\, to discuss the outcome and to explain what changes will be implemented going forward?\nIn what circumstances should the employer consider hiring a professional mediator to deal with ongoing conflicts? When is one-on-one counselling appropriate?\nWhen does legislation require that a neutral investigator be appointed? When should this be done\, regardless of legislative requirements?\nDoes an apology by the offending parties play a useful role in defusing lingering tensions? What if an employee who behaved inappropriately is unremorseful and unwilling to accept responsibility?\nWhen should consideration be given to reassigning an employee (or employees) to a different work area?\nAfter an investigation\, what steps should be taken to reinforce expectations regarding applicable policies and acceptable behaviour at work?\n\nThursday\, October 17\, 2024Opening Remarks: 9:00 a.m. – 9:05 a.m. \nPanel 1 - Current and Critical: Major developments in legislation and caselaw - 9:05 a.m. – 10:35 a.m.\n\n\n \nDavid Olsen\nBoard Member\nFederal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (FPSLREB) \n\n\n \nSophie Arseneault\nEmployer Counsel\nFasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP \n\n\n \nAndrew Montague-Reinholdt\nUnion Counsel\nNelligan O’Brien Payne LLP \n\n\nIn this session\, expert panelists 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;\nFreedom of association;\nWorkplace investigations;\nDiscipline;\nPrivacy; and\nRemote work.\n\nThe panel will also examine recent legislative and other initiatives\, such as: \n\nFederal legislation to ban the use of strike replacement workers;\nThe report of the Employment Equity Act Review Task Force and related changes to the Act;\nRequiring companies to report the use of forced labour and child labour in the international supply chains; and\nThe Ontario government’s Working for Workers legislative series.\n\nFinal selection of topics will take place in the weeks leading up to the conference\, ensuring coverage of the latest and most newsworthy developments. \nBreak: 10:35 a.m. – 10:50 a.m. \nPanel 2 - Thinking Outside the Bots: Arbitrators weigh the pros and cons of artificial intelligence in labour relations - 10:50 a.m. – 12:05 p.m.\n\n\n \nClaire Kane Boychuk\nUnion Counsel \n\n\n \nJohn McLuckie\nUnion Counsel\nJewitt McLuckie & Associates \n\n\n \nAndrew Tremayne\nArbitrator/Mediator \n\n\n\n \nAndrew Vey\nEmployer Counsel\nVey WIllets LLP \n\n\n\nGiven the lack of Canadian arbitration decisions on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to recruit 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 management and union counsel will join an arbitrator to discuss a hypothetical union challenge to algorithmic management and to a program designed to vet job candidates. \nSpecific issues to be addressed include: \n\nWhat principles in existing federal or provincial 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 likely 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\nNetworking Lunch: 12:05 p.m. – 1:05 p.m. \nPanel 3 - Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: Addressing arbitrator selection\, scheduling issues\, and other obstacles to effective arbitration - 1:05 p.m. – 2:20 p.m.\n\n\n \nArchana Mathew\nArbitrator/Mediator \n\n\n \nMorgan Rowe\nUnion Counsel\nRavenLaw LLP \n\n\n \nGrace Skowronski\nSenior Legal Counsel\nCanada Post \n\n\nArbitration\, once heralded for its efficiency\, is grappling with hurdles that may erode confidence in the process. Parties and practitioners have raised concerns regarding judicialization\, timeliness\, and arbitrator selection. In this panel\, experts will address the following: \n\nIs there a shortage of neutrals? If so\, what is the effect on the arbitration process? On scheduling? On confidence in the process? How can the shortage of arbitrators\, if it exists\, be remedied?\nWhat common bottlenecks do parties encounter in the arbitral process? How can labour practitioners eliminate unnecessary delays? Does the growing legalism of arbitration undermine its unique advantages\, or is it necessary to ensure procedural protections for parties?\nWhat options exist outside of the conventional arbitration process? .g. Med-arb\, arb-med? Final offer selection? In what circumstances should parties consider these alternatives?\nCan parties reduce arbitration timelines by participating in a virtual or hybrid format? Is there room to automate arbitration processes?\nWhat criteria should parties consider when selecting an arbitrator?\nWhat factors should labour ministries take into account in appointing arbitrators? If expertise and acceptability to the labour relations community are relevant factors\, how should they be measured? How can the Labour ministry’s appointment process be made more transparent? More accountable in terms of ensuring the fair and equitable assignment of cases?\n\nBreak: 2:20 p.m. – 2:35 p.m. \nPanel 4 - Is it Harassment or Isn’t It? An interactive panel based on actual case studies - 2:35 p.m. – 3:50 p.m.\n\n\n \nChris Davidson\nWorkplace Investigator\nTurnpenney Milne LLP \n\n\n \nTia Hazra\nConsultation Team Lead\nProfessional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) \n\n\n \nLarissa Volinets Schieven \nCounsel\nTreasury Board Secretariat Legal Services\nDepartment of Justice Canada \n\n\nIn many instances conduct or comments will clearly meet the definition of harassment. However\, in other cases\, debate may arise as to whether the alleged harasser knew or ought reasonably to have known that their behaviour was unwelcome\, offensive\, or harmful. In this session\, panelists will highlight the degree to which reasonable minds may disagree about whether comments or conduct constitute harassment\, probe the reasons behind such disagreement\, and address issues such as: \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 do a complainant’s personal characteristics – gender and race\, for example – play in determining whether certain conduct should reasonably be 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 unwelcome?\nDoes workplace culture play any role in determining whether conduct or comments amount to harassment?\nIs the analysis of whether conduct constitutes harassment affected by a friendship or previous romantic relationship between the complainant and respondent? What about power imbalances or lack thereof?\nHow is the reasonableness of management’s response assessed by arbitrators?\n\nClosing remarks: 3:50 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. \nFriday\, October 18\, 2024Opening Remarks: 9:00 a.m. – 9:05 a.m. \nPanel 5 - Beliefs and Boundaries: Reconciling employee free speech and legitimate employer concerns - 9:05 a.m. – 10:35 a.m.\n\n\n \nDavid Jewitt\nArbitrator\, Mediator\, Workplace Investigator \n\n\n \nLauren Brecher\nEmployer Counsel\nEmond Harnden LLP \n\n\n \nDavid Yazbeck\nDirector\, National Labour Relations\nProfessional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) \n\n\nHow can employers balance freedom of expression under the Charter with the need to maintain a productive and respectful workplace? In this session\, panelists will address: \n\nDo employees have the right to express their views on potentially controversial and/or political matters at work?\nWhat criteria should employers and unions consider when determining whether an employee’s speech or actions pose a legitimate concern to the organization’s reputation or operations? What actions should employers or unions take when employees’ expressions border on being disrespectful or offensive\, but are not overtly harmful?\nCan employers or unions set policies governing conduct for off work or social media expression? If so\, what are best practices for ensuring these policies respect individual freedoms and the reputation and operations of the workplace?\nCan employers monitor employee expressions outside the workplace or on social media? Can employers discipline employees for such expressions?\nWhat is the extent of a union’s duty to represent members who face work-related consequences for potentially polarizing beliefs or actions? When will a union’s decision not to represent a member constitute a breach of the duty of fair representation?\nHow can employers and unions effectively communicate expectations regarding employee expression\, appropriate workplace conduct\, and appropriate off-work conduct?\n\nBreak: 10:35 a.m. – 10:50 a.m. \nPanel 6 - Bar None: Achieving gender inclusivity in the workplace - 10:50 a.m. – 12:20 p.m.\n\n\n \nTyler Boyce\nExecutive Director\nThe Enchante Network \n\n\n \nLori Harreman\nLegal Coordinator\nOntario Nurses’ Association \n\n\n \nDan Irving\, PhD\nAssociate Professor\nInstitute of Interdisciplinary Studies\nCarleton University \n\n\n \nGrace McDonell\nEmployer Counsel\nMcCarthy Tétrault \n\n\nEnsuring genuine inclusion of transgender and gender-diverse individuals in the workplace contributes to providing a healthy\, safe\, and equitable work environment. In this session\, expert panelists will examine ways in which employers\, unions\, and employees can collaborate to create an inclusive workplace for all\, including through collective agreement language\, policies\, and other working arrangements. Final topics will be selected in consultation with panelists in the weeks preceding the conference. \nNetworking Lunch: 12:20 p.m. – 1:20 p.m. \nFireside Chat - 1:20 p.m. – 2:05 p.m.\n\n\n \nMadame Justice Karen Jensen\nJudge\nOntario Superior Court of Justice \n\n\n \nMeg Steele\nChief Human Resources Officer\nOttawa Police Service \n\n\nBreak: 2:05 p.m. – 2:20 p.m. \nPanel 7 - Using Non-Disclosure Agreements to Settle Harassment and Other Workplace Disputes: Is the case for abolition compelling? - 2:20 p.m. – 3:50 p.m.\n\n\n \nDavid Bennett\nMediator\, Arbitrator\, Investigator \n\n\n \nStephanie Lewis\nEmployer Counsel\nDentons \n\n\n \nMiriam Martin\nBarrister & Solicitor\nCanadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) \n\n\nNon-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are contractual agreements designed to maintain confidentiality among involved parties. While NDAs are frequently used in workplace settlements\, there is increasing apprehension about the potential of NDAs to silence victims of discrimination and harassment while shielding employers from reputational damage and other liabilities. In this session\, a panel of experts will address the following: \n\nWhat legislative/regulatory changes have been adopted respecting the use of NDAs in workplace disputes?\nHow are NDAs currently being used in workplace disputes?\nWhat information can be covered by an NDA?\nWhat are the negative ramifications of using NDAs in workplace disputes? What are the potential benefits? How might NDAs impact the victims of harassment and/or violence?\nWhat circumstances may render an NDA unenforceable?\nWhat happens if an employee\, former employee\, or the employer violates an NDA? How have courts and/or arbitrators treated breaches of NDAs?\n\nClosing remarks: 3:50 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. \nWorkshop - CPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved for Continuing Professional Development 5.5 hours under Category A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\n \n\nCPD for Members of the Law Society of Ontario: 5.5 Substantive Hours; 0 Professionalism Hours.\n\n\n\n\nConference - CPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved for 10.5 Continuing Professional Development (CPD) hours under Section A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\n \n\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 10.5 substantive hours; 0 professionalism hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/ottawa-labour-law-conference-2024/
LOCATION:Rogers Centre Ottawa\, 55 Colonel By Drive\, Ottawa\, Ontario\, K1N 9J2\, Canada
CATEGORIES:Conference,Labour Law & Labour Policy
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/oll-header.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Halifax:20241028T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Halifax:20241028T160000
DTSTAMP:20260405T205216
CREATED:20240111T173330Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240730T163441Z
UID:11819-1730118600-1730131200@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Grievance Arbitration Police Services Workshop: Current trends\, contested issues
DESCRIPTION:Speakers\n\n \nChris Albertyn\nArbitrator \n\n\n \nTom Roper K.C.\nLabour Relations Counsel \n\n\n \nNini Jones\nLabour Relations Counsel \n\n\nMonday\, October 28\, 2024This session on grievance arbitration in the police services sector across Canada will be conducted by an experienced arbitrator together with leading union and management counsel. \nPanelists will explore recent decisions relating to current issues including the following: \n\nDischarge and discipline\nBenefits and benefit-related issues\nHuman rights and discrimination\nWorkplace harassment\nDisability and accommodation\nPrivacy and privacy-related issues / medical information\nSick leave and other leaves of absence\nMinimum staffing\, etc.\nTransfer and promotion\nAlcohol and drug addiction\nOff-duty conduct\nMandatory vaccination\nIndemnity for legal costs\nJurisdiction of arbitrators vs. human rights and police service appeal tribunals\n\nAttendees can expect to be updated on cases involving the principles of collective agreement interpretation\, including the following: \n\n“Plain meaning” rule / ambiguity\nContextual evidence of negotiating history\nEstoppel\nStatutory freeze issues\nThe requirements of good faith\nFairness and management rights\nRelevance of statute law\nReasons and judicial review\n\nThe emphasis will be on practical advice. Up-to-date materials will be provided with case summaries\, overviews and analyses prepared by Lancaster’s legal staff. \nWho should attend? The program is designed for: \n\nHR directors\, professionals and executives\nPolice chiefs\nUnion officers\, representatives and advocates\nGrievance advisors and committee members\nLabour lawyers/consultants\nArbitrators\, mediators and adjudicators\nDeputy police chiefs\n\nCPDWorkshop CPD\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 3.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n \n\n\nThis program has been approved for Continuing Professional Development 3.5 hours under Category A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCPD for Members of the Law Society of Ontario: 3.5 Substantive Hours; 0 Professionalism Hours.\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Colombia for 3.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may count this program for 3.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may count this program for 3.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n 
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/grievance-arbitration-police-services-workshop-current-trends-contested-issues/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Conference,Workshop
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/grievance-arbitration-police-services-2024-2.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR