Related employer declaration denied where union strategically certified only the brokerage and subsequently concluded a collective agreement.
The applicant trade union sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, to treat Royal Taxi and various Associates as a single employer.
The union had recently certified only the brokerage (Royal Taxi) and subsequently negotiated a collective agreement with it.
The Board declined to exercise its discretion to make the declaration, finding that the union had strategically chosen to certify only the brokerage and that adding the Associates now would unfairly disrupt the newly negotiated collective agreement, which did not address Associate-specific issues.
Preparatory earth-moving work for a commercial golf course falls within the statutory definition of the construction industry.
The applicant union referred a grievance concerning work performed by the responding party on a site intended for a golf course.
The responding party argued the work—topsoil stripping, stockpiling, and pond excavation—did not fall within the definition of 'construction industry' under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The Board applied the framework from Mannix Co. Ltd., considering the nature of the work, the equipment used, and the employer's business, and concluded the work was within the construction industry.
The Board directed the responding party to file submissions establishing a prima facie case that the work is not in the ICI sector before scheduling an oral hearing.
Interim relief and unfair labour practice complaint dismissed; duty of fair representation does not extend across separate bargaining units.
The applicants, representing occasional teachers, sought interim relief and filed a complaint alleging the OSSTF and the Toronto District School Board breached the Labour Relations Act.
They argued that a new collective agreement for full-time teachers effectively eliminated the work of occasional teachers, breaching the OSSTF's duty of fair representation and the employer's duty not to interfere with a trade union.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, holding that a union's duty of fair representation only applies when it is actively representing that specific bargaining unit, and that the employer's agreement to terms impacting another unit's work did not constitute statutory interference.
Judges' secretaries are not excluded from collective bargaining under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.
The applicant union sought to include judges' secretaries in its bargaining unit.
The responding party Crown argued they should be excluded under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act because their duties involved confidential matters and their inclusion would create a conflict of interest given their close relationship with judges.
The Board found that the secretaries did not deal with labour relations matters and that their duties did not create a conflict of interest with being members of a bargaining unit.
The Board concluded the secretaries were employees under the Act and entitled to participate in collective bargaining.
Tribunal revokes flawed pay equity plan and appoints Review Officer to assist in settling new plan.
The Corporation of the City of Peterborough objected to a Review Officer's order requiring the implementation of a pay equity plan negotiated with the Professional Fire Fighters Association.
The employer argued the comparison system and job data collection were flawed and gender-biased.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that the parties erred in treating each rank of Fire Fighter and Fire Alarm Operator as separate job classes, concluding there is only one job class for each.
The Tribunal also found the job data collection and comparison system inadequate.
Rather than ordering the parties to renegotiate, the Tribunal appointed a Review Officer to assist in settling the plan using the Tribunal's findings on job classes and job content.
One member dissented, arguing the parties' agreement on job classes should have been respected.
Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine if Crown is employer because issue was raised before statutory amendment.
The union filed an application seeking a declaration that the Crown was the employer of its members working at Family and Children's Services for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act.
The Crown raised a preliminary objection, arguing that subsection 1.1 of the Act prevented the Tribunal from finding the Crown to be the employer.
The Tribunal held that the exception in subsection 1.1(4)(b) applied because the issue of the Crown's status as employer had been raised in a previous application filed before December 18, 1991.
The preliminary objection was dismissed and the union's application was permitted to proceed.
One member dissented.
Applications adjourned sine die pending anticipated withdrawal following resolution of outstanding issues.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal adjourned the applications sine die, noting its understanding that the outstanding issues had been resolved.
The Tribunal indicated that the matters would be terminated in one year unless brought on for hearing before then.
Tribunal orders employer to notify former employees of delayed pay equity plan posting.
The Applicants requested an order requiring the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto to notify former employees about the posting of a new pay equity plan, which was posted more than five years after the mandatory posting date.
The employer opposed, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order notice beyond workplace posting.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held it had jurisdiction under its general remedial power in s. 25(2)(g) of the Pay Equity Act to order such notice, as workplace posting would be meaningless for former employees.
The Tribunal ordered the employer to notify former employees and extended the posting date to allow them adequate time to review and object.
Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to order employer to pay employees' wages for attending hearing as an interim measure.
At the commencement of a pay equity hearing, the applicants and respondent employees requested an interim order requiring the employer to permit them to attend the hearing without loss of pay.
They argued that requiring them to use vacation or unpaid leave created an economic barrier to accessing their rights under the Pay Equity Act.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it lacked jurisdiction under the Act to order an employer to fund employee participation at the start of a hearing, prior to any findings of a statutory breach.
Township found to be the employer of family resource centre staff for pay equity purposes.
The Tribunal determined whether the Corporation of the Township of Michipicoten or the Crown in Right of Ontario was the employer of employees at Chadwic Home, a Family Resource Centre, for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act.
While the Crown provided significant funding, the Township exercised comprehensive day-to-day control over operations, hiring, wages, and terms of employment.
The Tribunal concluded that the Township was the employer and upheld the Review Officer's order.
Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to inquire into changed circumstances under the Pay Equity Act absent an existing plan.
The employers applied to the Tribunal alleging a change in the identity of the employers under the Pay Equity Act.
The employers argued that the Tribunal should determine who the employer is at different points in time due to changed circumstances, even though no pay equity plan had been posted.
The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into changed circumstances absent an existing pay equity plan.
The existence of a plan is a precondition to examining whether changed circumstances render the plan no longer appropriate.
Employer breached duty to bargain in good faith by misleading union about intent to appeal order.
The Union alleged that the Employer failed to bargain in good faith during pay equity negotiations and brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the Employer's application regarding a Review Officer's order on gender dominance.
The Tribunal refused to dismiss the Employer's application for delay or abuse of process, finding that meaningful bargaining had occurred.
However, the Tribunal found that the Employer failed to bargain in good faith by continuing to negotiate as if it accepted the Review Officer's first order while secretly intending to appeal it, thereby misleading the Union.
The Tribunal reserved on the quantum of compensation for wasted time and expense in evaluating job classes.
Employer identity for pay equity purposes is determined as of the Act's effective date.
In a preliminary ruling to determine the identity of the employer for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal held that the relevant point in time for the inquiry is the effective date of the Act (January 1, 1988).
However, the Tribunal noted it would also hear evidence regarding any changes in the organization up to the mandatory posting date to fashion practical remedies.
The Tribunal declined to hear evidence regarding the identity of the employer at the present time, as that was a separate question.
Employer's application for prospective interpretation of red-circling provisions dismissed as premature.
The employer applied to the Tribunal seeking a prospective interpretation of the red-circling provisions under s. 8(1)(d) of the Pay Equity Act.
The union raised a preliminary objection that the employer had not made out a prima facie case and that the matter was not ripe for adjudication.
The Tribunal agreed with the union, finding that the application was premature because a sufficient factual basis was required to determine if the statutory requirements for red-circling were met.
The Tribunal declined to render a decision in the abstract.
Tribunal refused to vary Review Officer's order on consent where amendment lacked basis and exceeded original scope.
The parties reached an agreement prior to an oral hearing regarding pay equity job class evaluations and requested the Tribunal to vary a Review Officer's Order on consent.
The Tribunal refused the request, noting the parties provided no basis for the amendment and the requested variation went beyond the scope of the issues originally before the Review Officer.
The applications were adjourned sine die.
Tribunal modified proposed confidentiality order to balance protection of sensitive documents with public hearing obligations.
The parties requested an order from the Tribunal incorporating their agreement with respect to the production and use of sensitive business documents.
The Tribunal declined to order the agreement in its entirety, noting that it could not guarantee absolute confidentiality in light of potential freedom of information requests and its obligation to compile a public record for judicial review.
The Tribunal issued a modified protective order that balanced the parties' desire for confidentiality with the Tribunal's obligation to provide a fair and public hearing.
Tribunal declined to revoke Review Officer's Order on consent without further information justifying the settlement terms.
The applicant applied to the Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's Order.
Prior to the hearing, the parties reached an agreement on an amended pay equity plan and jointly requested that the Tribunal revoke the Order.
The Tribunal declined to issue the consent order, noting that the Memorandum of Settlement did not disclose the basis for certain conclusions regarding job rates, gender predominance, and comparability of job classes.
The Tribunal requested that the parties provide specific information in writing or schedule a hearing day before it would consider revoking the Order.
Hospitals' request to adjourn pay equity applications sine die denied; matters listed for hearing.
The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) requested that its pay equity applications against various hospitals be listed for hearing following the release of a related decision.
The respondent hospitals requested that the applications be adjourned sine die to allow for further negotiations on a gender-neutral comparison system.
The Tribunal denied the hospitals' adjournment request, finding no compelling reason to prevent ONA from proceeding.
The Tribunal ordered that the hospitals' cross-applications be listed for hearing alongside ONA's applications and directed the parties to complete their pleadings.
Tribunal held pay equity weightings agreement binding but point totals not binding pending employer ratification.
The union applied to the Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's order on a pay equity dispute.
The parties disagreed on whether they had previously reached a binding agreement on job evaluation weightings and point totals.
The Tribunal found that the agreement on weightings was binding as it had been ratified by the employer's Board of Trustees, but the point totals were not binding as they had not been ratified.
The Tribunal ordered the parties to determine the final point totals for the disputed job classes before it would decide the issue of comparability.
Tribunal issued consent order varying pay equity plan but refused to appoint Review Officer as arbiter.
The parties applied to the Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's Order for a pay equity plan for non-union employees of the Hospital.
The parties filed an Agreed Statement of Facts and requested a consent order.
The Tribunal confirmed the order for a single pay equity plan and varied the gender predominance of certain job classes on consent.
However, the Tribunal declined to order that the parties be bound by a re-evaluation process or to appoint a specific Review Officer to act as arbiter, as this would be inconsistent with the Pay Equity Act.
The proceedings were adjourned to allow the parties to resolve their differences.