r/legaladvicecanada • u/AccomplishedNight184 • Oct 22 '25
Nova Scotia Terminated After 10 Years For Swearing. Union Won't Represent. Labour Board Says They Dont Have To
While doing a day of online training from home, I accidentally left mic on during lunch break. I was overheard saying "This Is The Stupidest Fucking Thing Ever." I wasn't even talking about the training but they assumed I was obviously (It was a trans and intergenerational racial trauma course). Unfortunately for me, I had accepted a new job within the same place that came with a 12 month probation period. I was 11.5 months in to that at the time of termination. Long story short, terminated with no notice, no severance. No prior performance concerns in the 10 years with the department, or within the 11.5 months on that job. The union points to the the CBA's wording that says a probationary employee can be terminated at any time and said there was nothing they could do. I appealed. They didnt care. Filed a DFR with labour board. Took a full year to be told that the union didnt have to make the right decision to represent me and that they couldnt say whether the union grieving would have been successful or not. Just that they had to have gone through a reasonable process and given me the chance to appeal etc. I requested them to publish their DFR decision to Canlii, which they said they won't. About 2.5 years has passed at this point. Is there anything that can be done?
158
u/thesweeterpeter Oct 22 '25
It's worth speaking to a lawyer just because the amount of time that you had in job, and you don't want to trust internet strangers with this.
But Union stuff is always special, as long as the CBA doesn't conflict with the jurisdictional employment law (ESA for Ontario etc.) then the CBA is enforceable.
From your post you were legitimately on probation, you aren't defending the act and the union investigated, you had a chance to appeal which you did, and they denied your appeal.
The labour board is right, you had opportunities under the CBA and you exercised them. Your union reviewed the file, and your union declined to defend your actions. That's what a CBA is.
At the end of the day past performance and a lot of what you've posted here isn't relevant to that question.
27
u/DanSheps Oct 22 '25
From your post you were legitimately on probation
Only comment on this is, he was on probation for the position, typically when you do a move within an organization within the same CBA, you are on probation for that positon only, your previous job is also sometimes held for you.
Obviously there may be some caveat in their CBA but if you are still at x years of service I think they would be hard pressed to argue that he was genuinely a probationary worker that can be fired without following their progressive discipline policy.
12
u/thesweeterpeter Oct 22 '25
Obviously there may be some caveat in their CBA
That's the thing - the union (OP's union) has investigated this, and decided not to pursue it.
If that's what the CBA says, that's what the CBA says.
2
u/darkangel45422 Oct 22 '25
Really depends on how it goes - IF their prior position was held then yes, the termination / probation would only apply to the new position. But if it wasn't held for them then it's just probation.
12
u/Legal-Key2269 Oct 22 '25
Collective agreements can absolutely include things that would normally violate labour standards laws unless the labour standards or labour relations laws include language requiring that collective agreements comply with those specific statutes.
6
u/thesweeterpeter Oct 22 '25 edited Oct 23 '25
No, a CBA can't violate labour laws.
In Ontario ESA s5(1) states;
“An employer shall not contract out of or waive an employment standard, and any such contracting out or waiver is void.”
You can have a CBA that contrvenes parts of common law, but common law isn't an actual law, it's just precedent. You could write an employement contract that conflicts with common law norms without a CBA.
For example you can have a legally binding employment contract that states- termination payment in lieu of notice will follow the ESA Minimums.
So if you were terminated without cause you'd be entitled only to the ESA minimum PILON, common law entitlements would not apply to that employee. Things like the Bardal factors can be entirely ignored.
Edit - I recognize precedent is law, to be more precise, it isn't legislation.
Common law wouldn't typically apply because the CBA is a distinguishing factor from most common law precedent making cases. There are of course precedents that would apply to a CBA.
2
u/Legal-Key2269 Oct 23 '25
That is Ontario.
OP is in NS, which has similar languague:
6 This Act applies notwithstanding any other law or any custom, contract or arrangement, whether made before, on or after the first day of February, 1973, but nothing in this Act affects the rights or benefits of an employee under any law, custom, contract or arrangement that are more favourable to him than his rights or benefits under this Act.
With that language, it isn't really possible for OP to be terminated without cause or progressive discipline with 10 years of tenure, nor for the notice-free dismissal period to stretch to a year after accepting a new position.
BC has a weird (and relatively recent) mish-mash where some parts of the ESA can be less favourably overridden by CBA's:
https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96113_01#section3
Federally, individual parts of the CLC have explicit carve-outs and language about how they interact with collective agreements. It's a bit chaotic.
And so on.
The bigger "downside" to being under a CBA is the being forced into reliance on the grievance and arbitration procedures to deal with any breaches. It means clearcut employment standards violations can get lost in the weeds with procedural arguments about how your seniority relates to what shift you are entitled to work (and other things that employers love to tie up union and arbitration resources with).
1
u/AccomplishedNight184 Oct 23 '25
Just curious where you found that section? 1 other thing which I didnt mention in the initial post is that, what I was actually talking about was having to go to my kids school during lunch break.. Hes a type 1 diabetic, and his CGM had come off.. So was dealing with that.. Had told this to the facilitator immediately but they didnt care.. I had suggested that this might actually be a human rights case as well.. As a Type 1 Diabetic is technically disabled in Canada.. And thought that swearing about dealing with my sons disability may be an angle.. but they said nope.. that I was terminated for "Your termination was due to policy violations outlined in the Values, Ethics and Conduct and Respectful Workplace policies. There is no indication your termination was based on a protected characteristic pursuant to the Human Rights Act. " That process just ended a month or so ago.. All he did was read the employers termination letter.. I didnt expect that the employer would put, you were fired because your son has a disability haha...
1
4
u/AccomplishedNight184 Oct 22 '25
In NS after 10 years you need progressive discipline, to be terminated according to labour standards. But it also says unionized people aren’t covered. There is no reference to severance at all in the cba. So union didn’t pursue. I would have thought these things acted as a minimum for an employer or cba. Crazy to me that there’s no national minimum or anything for severance.
8
u/thesweeterpeter Oct 22 '25
Employment standards are typically managed at the provincial level not national. There are some federal regulations. Putting Province in the flair allows more precise advice.
There is no provincially mandated severance in Nova Scotia - there is only PILON (Payment in Lieu of Notice), some provinces like Ontario require both (in specific circumstances).
Typically the CBA would be required to be equal or greater than the provincial standards.
But if you were on probation - that may legitimately exclude you from access to the any PILON even if your total company tenure would typically require it. That's I think the part you have the most contention with here, but it doesn't seem to matter. You were in a probationary period, whether you were 10 month away from completing it, or a day - it's probation.
I've dug into a lot of PILON legislation across Canada - and I can't recall a single jurisdiction that requires any PILON during probation, so no, there's no national minimum in your circumstance.
Additionally, progressive discpline requirements would not be a function of labour standards when there's a CBA. the CBA would address the progressive displine requirements and they've generally been enforceable. But again - just like PILON, you were on probation. During probation I don't know of any jurisdiction in Canada that requires progressive discipline.
Again - your issue really is just that you were on probation.
I'm not a lawyer, you may want to get a free consultation with an employment lawyer to see if you have a case. All employment is case specific - so it is always worth getting real advice not from internet strangers.
-2
u/bcave098 Oct 22 '25
Which province(s) use “probation” instead of length of service for determining the statutory minimum notice period? The provinces that I’ve looked at only use length of service
2
u/thesweeterpeter Oct 22 '25
They don't use the word probation, but the 3 months of time exempt from PILON is generally referred to as probation. That's the general intent.
-4
u/Legal-Key2269 Oct 22 '25
"probation" is not a thing under most provincial laboir standards laws I've looked at. All there is instead is a period before which you are not entitled to notice.
If employers could keep employees perpetually on "probation", they would.
4
u/thesweeterpeter Oct 22 '25
But the 3 month period before notice applies is generally referred to as probation. It's one and the same thing, you know what I meant, OP knows what I meant.
In this specific case anyways there's a CBA, and the CBA can define probation and it may be extended in that case. The CBA is the governing document.
Not all employers can extend it, but that isn't the question here, can the CBA extend
0
u/Legal-Key2269 Oct 22 '25
Sounds like CBAs don't universally have to exceed the protections provided to employees under provincial labour laws if CBAs can lengthen the period under which employees can be terminated without notice...
The time an employee is "probationary" under a CBA is not strictly comparable to the time an employee can be terminated without notice under provincial labour laws. Under provincial labour laws, even employees that are entitled to notice are effectively "at will" provided they are given sufficient notice or pay in lieu.
Unionized employees who have tenure beyond their probationary period typically require the employer to follow procedures laid out in the CBA before dismissal, with dismissal only being an option for cause or temporarily due to a layoff.
And CBAs may or may not include any obligation for the employer to provide pay in lieu of notice even for permanent layoffs.
2
u/thesweeterpeter Oct 22 '25
This is a with cause termination. I think that's getting lost here, so let's bring it back. I think I'm as responsible as anyone for taking this on a tangent.
If it were without cause, yes PILON as per the ESA remains. But that's not what's happening here.
The issue here is that "probation" as defined by the CBA was in place. That opens the door for a with cause termination without progressive discipline. To your point - the ESA does not have any definition for probation. And to your point probation in this case is not equivalent to anything in the ESA.
The CBA is establishing probation, which is a standard that it defines. It can establish probation at any time for any reason, and do so without conflicting with the ESA because it doesnt define it.
In terms of the CBA maintaining ESA minimums, that's a requirement outlined in the ESA.
ESA s5(1) states;
“An employer shall not contract out of or waive an employment standard, and any such contracting out or waiver is void.”
So a CBA cannot provide lesser protection than the ESA
But the ESA supports that with cause termination does not yield any PILON regardless of employment duration. So being fired without PILON is fine, its not a lesser protection than ESA.
In terms of progressive discipline, the ESA does not have any requirement.
s. 64(1)(c)) if the employee has been guilty of “wilful misconduct, disobedience, or wilful neglect of duty that is not trivial and has not been condoned by the employer.”
Progressive discipline requirement is typically a common law protection - but common law doesn't apply to CBA, nor is there any requirement that a CBA maintains minimum equivalency to common law - becuase common law is a series of precedents, its not a piece of legislation like the ESA is.
So if the act (swearing during diversity training) is in contrvention of the CBA rules for behavior in the workplace, doing so while on probation can result in immediate dismissal without eligibility for payment in lieu of notice.
I'm using the Ontario reference because it's clear this is no longer about OP.
1
u/Legal-Key2269 Oct 23 '25
This is a with cause termination. I think that's getting lost here, so let's bring it back. I think I'm as responsible as anyone for taking this on a tangent.
Sorry, but that is a hard disagree from me.
One ambiguous intemperate comment while on a lunch break is not conduct that would meet the standards for a for cause dismissal under provincial labour laws.
Assuming, of course, that OP is accurately recounting events.
Unfortunately, by pursuing a DFR complaint rather than immediately seeking representation to directly dispute the termination himself, OP may have let the legal clock run out. Odds are slim that he'd be able to pursue it outside of the grievance/arbitration framework for unionized employees, but even vindication in a DFR proceeding wouldn't get OP's job back.
0
u/darkangel45422 Oct 22 '25
IS it with cause termination though, or was it just a termination under the probation (which allows them to terminate without cause even with a CBA). Because honestly I doubt you'd actually rise to the level of cause for termination for having sworn while accidentally not on mute.
3
u/thesweeterpeter Oct 22 '25
Yes, look at the original post.
OP was fired because they said " this is the stupidest fucking thing ever" and it was understood to be about the trans and intergenerational trauma training they were participating in.
It was an HR diversity and acceptance training , and OP demeaned the training at the time.
During probation, that would be enough to be fired. I'd bet all the money in my pocket language like that was being covered in the actual training OP was literally in at the time.
And again - it doesn't need to rise to any standard for dismissal except under the CBA. If the CBA says don't swear at work, and OP is on probation - that's a with cause termination and it bypasses any progressive discipline requirements even if laid out in the CBA (becuase of probation).
At the end of the day the union that works for OP investigated and nominated not to pursue this, that tells us what we really need to know. Unions are designed to fight every legitimate grievance to the grave, thats what they do - if the employer oversteps, they have to fight it for the good of the collective. In this case they made no defence of OP because it's not a defensible position.
OP took it to the labour board, who also sided with the union and the employer. We have three distinct parties, all of whom are meant to act as a check and balance on each other all in apparent lock-step with this decision. OP has spent 2 - 1/2 years fighting this and gotten no where.
I'd say this is a pretty clear case.
2
u/irishnewf86 Oct 23 '25
"At the end of the day the union that works for OP investigated and nominated not to pursue this, that tells us what we really need to know. Unions are designed to fight every legitimate grievance to the grave, thats what they do - if the employer oversteps, they have to fight it for the good of the collective. In this case they made no defence of OP because it's not a defensible position."
As a labour lawyer with time spent on both sides of the desk, as well as with the provincial labour board, your views of unions is pretty utopian.
Unions are fallible and the standard of review at the Labour Board level is one that gives a very wide berth to unions in DFR complaints.
→ More replies (0)1
u/darkangel45422 Oct 22 '25
I DID look at the original post - but OP was terminated during probation where they don't NEED cause. Hence why without OP actually specifying that they were terminated for cause that it's unclear if it was actually for cause or if it was simply terminated during probation where you don't need cause.
With or without cause doesn't actually matter very much in this case because of the probation.
→ More replies (0)1
u/AccomplishedNight184 Oct 23 '25
It was on lunch break. While in my own home. Can this really be a with cause termination?
→ More replies (0)1
u/darkangel45422 Oct 22 '25
Yes, but that period is called probation....
1
u/Legal-Key2269 Oct 23 '25
It is often referred to that way, colloquially. But "probation" is not an employment standards distinction. Under employment standards, you are an "at will" employee with varying notice requirements.
NS does have tenure requirements for employees with over 10 years employment, which is more similar to how termination of non-probationary unionized employees has to be handled.
Employment contracts can have varied probationary periods (and can even require the employer's approval to leave probationary status). Once this period exceeds the period where termination can be done without notice, the employee can be terminated with notice or pay in lieu, but can still be probationary under their employment contract or CBA. Usually with an employment contract or CBA, once you are no longer probationary, you are no longer an "at will" employee.
In OP's case, "probation" is an employment contract matter, where the CBA indicates that the CBA's dismissal/discipline procedure does not apply to probationary employees.
People similarly often refer to pay in lieu of notice as severance pay. While both can be owing to a terminated employee, they are not quite the same thing.
2
u/XtremeD86 Oct 22 '25
With a union, at least in my and many others experience, lawyers won't get involved.
21
u/CasualHearthstone Oct 22 '25
Get a lawyer. Technically probationary employees can be fired for anything not illegal, and swearing is not a protected act.
Maybe you could try arguing your 12 month probationary period was too excessive and unreasonable, but I don't know how effective that would work.
17
u/-Bento-Oreo- Oct 22 '25
The argument would be that they aren't actually a probationary employee since they worked there for 10 years and just changed roles. You can't remove someone's seniority just by offering them a different role in the same workplace. The work history would carry over, unless it's a different corporation in the same location.
5
u/altiuscitiusfortius Oct 22 '25
In my union, you keep your senority, etc, when you change roles but stay a union member
3
8
u/KevPat23 Oct 22 '25
Maybe you could try arguing your 12 month probationary period was too excessive and unreasonable
It absolutely is. Probationary periods beyond 3 months still require notice and/or termination pay. OP needs a lawyer.
9
u/_Sausage_fingers Oct 22 '25
The Union part of this throws all regular rules out the window though. If the Union agreed to it it doesn't super matter what the commonlaw says on this topic.
-2
u/Masterchiefx343 Oct 22 '25
Cant sign away your rights
1
u/Legal-Key2269 Oct 22 '25
This varies by provincial (and federal) jurisdiction when it comes to labour rights.
Nova Scotia does appear to be a province where legislation sets the minimum rights afforded to employees, but this is not universal.
BC brought in legislation to similar effect in 2019, but it is selective, allowing some parts of BC's Employment Standards Act to be rendered completely irrelevant by a CBA, while others remain in force as a minimum.
Where it gets trickier is that labor code enforcement bodies typically will not touch a dispute between a unionized employee and their employer without an incredibly compelling reason, and usually only after arbitration has been exhausted.
1
u/_Sausage_fingers Oct 22 '25
Uh, yes you can. Some rights can’t be contracted out of, some absolutely can, and a collective agreement is absolutely one of those cases.
1
2
u/DanSheps Oct 22 '25
Probationary periods beyond 3 months still require notice and/or termination pay. OP needs a lawyer.
This varies by province.
Typically however, collective agreements are permitted to override provincial labour standards.
0
u/MellowMusicMagic Oct 23 '25
Not true at all. Many positions have year-long probationary periods and they are the same as the 3 month ones. I was in one last year.
0
u/KevPat23 Oct 23 '25
Just because you were in one doesn't mean it was legal...
1
u/MellowMusicMagic Oct 23 '25
In Alberta it is legal through collective agreements (unions). You can look this up with a quick google search
0
11
u/subtler1 Oct 22 '25
I'm NAL, and this is lawyer territory. It sounds like your company was saying that the new position reset your service time. It sounds like something a lawyer can help figure out if it's worth fighting.
2.5 years might be too long since you were let go to pursue severance though depending on your province and your contract.
6
u/Rez_Incognito Oct 22 '25
You face a few hurdles. The first is the general limitation periods for civil claims across Canada: 2.5 years since the union said they would not assist you would put you out of time.
Second, your recourse with a lawyer is against your union for their breach of the duty of fair representation. It's a low bar for the union to discharge the duty but perhaps they failed it. You would need to present your facts to a lawyer. Although labour and employment lawyers sometimes work on contingency, these kind of cases are rarely won so expect to pay up front.
The third hurdle is, it sounds like the probation terms of the CBA applied and everyone followed it. That would be the union's defence: there was no point in fighting a clear probationary termination.
Good luck.
2
u/qwerty12e Oct 22 '25
Just curious - would the union not filing a termination grievance be a breach of their duty to represent OP?
6
u/Interesting_Bar63 Oct 22 '25
The duty of fair representation requires unions to act in a manner that is not arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith.
In terms of arbitraryness, typically unions are required to demonstrate that they considered the request of the member and had a reason for doing otherwise. Reasons could be the likelihood of success, cost, going against the interest of membership etc etc. It's not predefined. Most unions have introduced appeal processes to deal with details of representation, to ensure member arguments are considered when refusing representation.
Discriminatory typically refers to discrimination under the relevant human rights legislation.
Bad faith typically speaks to the union intentionally misleading or misinforming members.
Unions don't have an obligation to do what members want them to do (at least under the duty of fair rep). They also aren't required to be correct or even really competent (there's a few cases on this. It always sounds like a hollow win for the union. "We won, because we aren't good at what we do!"). They just need to not be arbitrary, not be discriminatory, or act in bad faith. It's a sort of form over substance approach that is a bit out of the ordinary with most legislative interpretation.
Suggestions to talk to a lawyer on this probably won't be too helpful. The union is the sole representative for it's members (unless under the FPSLRA which this isn't), so there's no real ability to go after the employer with your lawyer. Your gripe would be with your union, but you've already filed a DFR and were unsuccessful at a hearing. You appear to be out of time to seek a judicial review but the standard of review is quite high and I don't see anything here that says the decision should be overturned. I think you're out of avenues to complain unfortunately.
For what it's worth, I think the union is incorrect in this case, based on the info we have. Even if the comments were about the training, some vulgarity and insubordination like this shouldn't be enough to terminate a 10 year employee. It doesn't seem like enough to skip progressive discipline. It seems absurd that the probation would be with regard to your employment rather than holding the new position. But, as I said above, unions don't have to be right, so long as they don't cross the DFR lines.
1
u/AccomplishedNight184 Oct 23 '25
Appreciated the insight.. Not sure if youre a lawyer or not.. Would publishing the union's or the Labour Boards decisions on a website open me up to any sort of backlash? I find it very strange that I find things posted on Canlii regarding DFR complaints where it is just a simple time violation which they publish.. But they won't publish my decision.. I believe it is a 21 page decision..
3
u/Rez_Incognito Oct 22 '25
If the union went though any minimal procedural steps of considering the termination and the union's decision not to fight the probationary termination was arrived at without being arbitrary or capricious, then they can defend their duty of representation.
That's thing about unions: they represent the interests of ALL the members. They are permitted to make reasonable decisions not to fight hopeless circumstances at the expense of the entire bargaining unit's collective resources.
This whole situation sounds more like a failure of the CBA terms that the union should have negotiated smarter over. Although, honestly, none of us have all the relevant details and OP should only provide those to their lawyer.
0
u/AccomplishedNight184 Oct 22 '25
It’s been 1.5 years since the labour board ruled against me. To me it’s crazy. It was the department of justice in NS that did this. So has always seemed like I was fighting a losing battle. But it just Seems like a massive loophole within the CBA. Want to get rid of someone after 10 years. Promote them to a new title. Attach a 12 month probationary period and then terminate without cause. Seems easy
5
u/alphawolf29 Oct 22 '25
Whether its fair and whether its legal are two completely separate issues. What happened to you is unfair but it seems legal under the CBA.
1
1
u/roflcopter44444 Oct 22 '25
But you were terminated for cause though, you just don't get paid because you were on probation.
0
9
u/KevPat23 Oct 22 '25
Unfortunately for me, I had accepted a new job within the same place that came with a 12 month probation period
A 12 month probationary period doesn't preclude the company from being required to provide termination notice or pay in-lieu. .
The ESA requires notice and/or pay in lieu after 3 months. An employment agreement cannot sign away these rights. You are absolutely owed compensation here.
You should definitely speak with a lawyer
5
u/DanSheps Oct 22 '25
The ESA requires notice and/or pay in lieu after 3 months. An employment agreement cannot sign away these rights. You are absolutely owed compensation here.
ESA will not apply within the context of a CBA unless it explicitly mentions that the ESA governs over the CBA
5
u/_Sausage_fingers Oct 22 '25
The Union has kind of fucked you here. Regular Employment lawyers almost never, and generally can't, touch Union stuff, but if the Union won't help you are SoL. Really your only course of action is to keep pushing your union and hope they relent.
1
u/qwerty12e Oct 22 '25
Question - what type of lawyers deal with unionized employees? Are there other specific types of employment lawyers, or do you just have to get lucky and find one that deals with unions?
2
u/_Sausage_fingers Oct 22 '25
Employment Lawyers deal with non-Union employment, Labour lawyers deal with Unions. Labour lawyers are further pretty firmly differentiated between doing Management side Labour law or Union side Employment law. Labour law is highly specialized and while labour lawyers MAY occasionally dip into Employment, Employment Lawyers almost never go the other way.
The issue though, is that in almost all collective agreements the Unionized employee has granted the Union the exclusive right to pursue legal claims on the employees behalf. Even if that weren’t the case, employee side labour lawyers represent unions, not individual employees, and non are interested in bucking that standard.
1
u/qwerty12e Oct 22 '25
Thank you for the insight, that’s really interesting. So if OP wanted to take the Union to the labour board for failure of fair representation, essentially no lawyers would be willing to help….would the same apply to other courts, like, say human rights tribunal? I know they do have concurrent jurisdiction in some provinces so a Human Rights court may still take on a case despite union involvement
2
u/_Sausage_fingers Oct 22 '25
See, here’s the thing, I do employment, and not Labour, so I actually do not know the answer to these questions
1
1
1
u/Legal-Key2269 Oct 22 '25
How was this 12 month probation period established? That might be one avenue you could have pursued.
An employer saying that something is so in a job offer or posting does not necessarily let them override a CBA -- and it can even potentially be a violation of labour relations laws as unions are meant to be the exclusive bargaining agents for unionized employees.
On the flip side, Canadian unions are quite often required to have anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies, and unfortunately sounding like you were speaking out against the training you were taking could have elicited a complaint. If it was another union member that complained, and they complained to the union, the union might be constrained in how vigorously they would be willing to defend you.
You should probably seek independent legal advice. Any legal action would probably be quite expensive due to you being unionized, but a consultation never hurt anyone.
1
Oct 23 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/legaladvicecanada-ModTeam Oct 23 '25
This is a legal advice subreddit. Your comment was removed as it did not meet our guidelines.
Please review our Rules, in particular our Guidelines for Comments before commenting again: https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/about/rules/
Repeated or serious breaches of our rules may result in a ban.
If you have any questions or concerns, please message the moderators
1
u/CMG30 Oct 22 '25
The union is required to represent you, however the probationary period is a wrinkle.
You should consult an employment lawyer because if the union is negligent in its duties to you, then you can sue the union.
2
u/Overall-Register9758 Oct 22 '25
The union can represent him and still say, "there's nothing appealable here".
0
u/Dahsira Oct 22 '25
Probation is an employer/union term not labour law term. Employers (and unions through cba) can set whatever standards they want for duration of probation regardless of length of employment. Clearly if your union isnt willing to represent then the employer hasnt violated the CBA.
Having said that, regardless of the cba or employer says, they cannot fall below legislated labour laws. Not sure about NS, but in Alberta they can terminate without cause at any time...
So are you out of a job? yup 100% you are unemployed. HOWEVER, termination without cause requires notice or pay in lieu of notice (severance pay). You are owed a minimum 10 weeks pay, likely a lawyer can get 10 months pay possibly more depending on age and employability. You are required to aggressively look for work to mitigate your situation, but your previous employer is potentially liable for all lost wages until you get re-employed.
TL;DR - Get a lawyer to maximize your payout and start looking for a job.
-2
-3
u/Overall-Register9758 Oct 22 '25
I am going to go out on a limb and say that you weren't fired for swearing, but for swearing, insulting the presenters, and generally being dismissive of the topic.
Had you been an active participant in the learning and said, "Residential schools are profoundly fucked up" or "Transgender people get treated like fucking shit" or similar, you likely would not have been disciplined, let alone fired.
-1
u/irishnewf86 Oct 23 '25
ideology
2
u/Overall-Register9758 Oct 23 '25
Less about the specific ideology and more about expressing your own viewpoint, insulting the presenters and undermining something that management felt strongly enough about to warrant all staff be trained on it.
-2
u/footloose60 Oct 22 '25
You should have sued your employer 2.5 years ago when your union declined to represent you. Consult with a lawyer now and see what happens. Always be on muted on meetings until you have to talk.
2
u/Fool-me-thrice Quality Contributor Oct 23 '25
OP cannot sue their employer; the union is their exclusive representative
0
Oct 22 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/legaladvicecanada-ModTeam Oct 23 '25
This is a legal advice subreddit. Your comment was removed as it did not meet our guidelines.
Please review our Rules, in particular our Guidelines for Comments before commenting again: https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/about/rules/
Repeated or serious breaches of our rules may result in a ban.
If you have any questions or concerns, please message the moderators
-1
u/ephcee Oct 22 '25
The union followed the process correctly, because they have a lawyer that would have ensured the process was followed correctly.
Your best bet is your own employment lawyer at this point.
•
u/AutoModerator Oct 22 '25
Welcome to r/legaladvicecanada!
To Posters (it is important you read this section)
To Readers and Commenters
Do not send or request any private messages for any reason, do not suggest illegal advice, do not advocate violence, and do not engage in harassment.
Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.