A former carhouse operator for the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) is seeking to void his resignation, citing an incapacity to make rational decisions due to mental disability.
The case, heard by Arbitrator Sheri Price, has brought into question the circumstances surrounding his departure and the TTC’s subsequent handling of his resignation.
On June 18, 2021, the worker informed the TTC that he was resigning from his position. TTC management claims that he seemed composed and had decided to explore other employment opportunities. According to the TTC, the worker rejected the option of taking a leave of absence and proceeded to submit a written resignation the next day.
However, in July 2022, over a year later, the union filed a grievance asserting that the resignation was invalid due to his mental state at the time.
The union argued that the resignation is void because he lacked the mental capacity to form the intent to resign. They allege that the worker, who suffers from a mental disability, was incapable of making such a decision and that the TTC discriminated against him by accepting his resignation and refusing to reconsider it after learning about his condition.
TTC disputes claims
The TTC disputes the union’s claims. It contends that the worker voluntarily resigned and that there was no indication at the time that he was suffering from a mental disability. The TTC also argues that the grievance should be dismissed due to the union’s delay in filing it, stating that the substantial delay has prejudiced the TTC’s ability to gather and preserve relevant evidence.
During the videoconference hearing on June 14, 2024, Arbitrator Price was tasked with addressing the TTC’s request for the union to produce certain documents. These documents are crucial for the TTC to defend against the union’s allegations.
The TTC sought various documents, including the worker’s bank records, income tax filings, contracts, correspondence, and job search records, dating from January 2021 to July 2022. The TTC argued that these documents are relevant to understanding his activities and mental state during the period in question. The union opposed the request, labelling it a fishing expedition and asserting that many of the documents sought were irrelevant or privileged.
Arbitrator grants access to most documents TTC requested
In her interim award, Arbitrator Price determined that most of the documents requested by the TTC were arguably relevant and should be produced. “The documents are arguably relevant to the grievor’s activities during the period between his alleged resignation and the filing of the grievance. They will shed light on what the grievor was and was not capable of doing during that period.”
However, she limited the scope of some requests, particularly concerning bank records, which the TTC had sought from January 2021. Price ruled that the production of banking documents should be confined to the period from June 2021, when he allegedly resigned, to July 2022.
The request for his Amazon employment file was denied. The union argued that the file was not within its possession or control, and Price agreed, stating, “There is no basis upon which I could reasonably conclude that a former employer’s employment file is something that the grievor would have a right to access, upon request, or is otherwise within his power or control.”
Another significant aspect of the ruling involved communications between the worker and the union. The TTC sought these communications to understand when he first communicated his intent to challenge his resignation and when the union decided to file the grievance. The union claimed these communications were privileged.
Price granted the TTC’s request for documents relating to the timing of communications between the worker and the union but allowed for redactions of any sensitive content. She emphasized the need for a balance between confidentiality and the requirement for a fair hearing, noting, “Parties cannot expect that communications they rely upon in a legal proceeding will remain completely confidential.”
As the case progresses, the TTC will now have access to critical documents that could impact the outcome. This interim award represents a significant development in his fight to void his resignation and seek redress for what he and the union allege was discriminatory treatment by the TTC.
For more information, see Toronto Transit Commission v Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113, 2024 CanLII 70268 (ON LA).
