Graeme H. McKechnie

The union alleged that the employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement by requiring the grievor to report to a specific manager, contrary to an oral assurance given during mediation.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the written settlement did not mention the reporting relationship.

The Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding that its jurisdiction was limited to the implementation and interpretation of the written terms of the settlement, and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by offering a vacant position to the second-place candidate from a recent job competition without re-posting the position.

The first-place candidate had accepted the position but subsequently vacated it.

The union argued that the collective agreement provision allowing the employer to hire qualified candidates from a previous competition within six months applied only to bargaining unit members.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the collective agreement language clear and unambiguous, with no restriction limiting the provision's application to bargaining unit members.

The complainant, an employee with a long history of absenteeism, was diagnosed with cervical cancer and missed several months of work for surgery and recovery.

Upon her return, the employer issued a warning letter setting attendance conditions, noting her past absences including the cancer-related leave.

After a subsequent 40-day absence due to a car accident, her employment was terminated.

The Commission argued the termination was discriminatory because the cancer-related absence was a proximate cause.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer had accommodated the cancer absence by allowing her to return to work and improve her attendance, and that the termination was justified by her subsequent failure to maintain reasonable attendance.

The complainant alleged racial discrimination in employment against the East York Board of Education and individual respondents.

During the hearing, the complainant engaged in disruptive conduct and refused to provide an undertaking to the Board of Inquiry that he would answer questions directly and cease making derogatory comments.

Consequently, the Board ruled that the hearing could not proceed in an orderly manner and dismissed the complaint for lack of evidence.

The respondents then sought costs under s. 40(6) of the Human Rights Code.

The Board found that the respondents suffered undue hardship and ordered the Ontario Human Rights Commission to pay solicitor-client costs of $108,230.42, plus $10,027.60 for time spent by one of the respondents preparing for the hearing.

The complainant alleged that she was sexually harassed by her employer, Wilson Nuttall, while working at The Company Garden Centre.

The Board of Inquiry found that the employer engaged in a course of vexatious comment and physical conduct that was known to be unwelcome, violating sections 6(2) and 6(3)(a) of the Human Rights Code.

The harassment caused the complainant to leave her employment.

The respondents were ordered to pay $994 for lost wages, $2,500 in general damages, and interest, and were subjected to monitoring by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.