Michel G. Picher

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a preliminary motion to add the Ministry of Education and Training and Mr. André Lalonde as respondents to two human rights complaints regarding job competitions.

The complaints were originally filed against the Metropolitan Toronto School Board and the CEFCUT.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding it premature to add the Ministry or Mr. Lalonde in his personal capacity given the lack of evidence that Mr. Lalonde was acting as an employee of the Ministry rather than the school boards during his secondment, and considering the significant delay since the complaints were filed.

The complainant, a single mother of three children, was denied a two-bedroom apartment by the respondent landlords.

The landlords' policy permitted a family of four consisting of two adults and two children to rent a two-bedroom unit, but required a family of four consisting of one adult and three children to rent a three-bedroom unit.

The Board of Inquiry found that this policy constituted discrimination on the basis of family status contrary to section 2(1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The respondents were ordered to repay the complainant's deposit and to cease and desist from discriminating between two-parent and single-parent families in the granting of accommodation.

Following a finding that the respondent union violated section 69 of the Labour Relations Act regarding hiring hall referrals, the Board convened a hearing to determine compensation.

The Board rejected the calculation methods proposed by both the complainant and the union, finding them speculative.

Instead, the Board calculated compensation by comparing the complainant's actual earnings to the estimated average earnings of the active membership of the local union for the relevant year.

After deducting amounts for the complainant's failure to mitigate by voluntarily quitting a job and for a period of medical disability, the Board ordered the union to pay $4,341.86 plus interest and corresponding benefit contributions.

The complainant, a union member, alleged that his union and its business agent violated sections 69 and 70 of the Labour Relations Act by administering the hiring hall in an arbitrary, discriminatory, and bad faith manner, and by engaging in intimidation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found overwhelming evidence of nepotism, patronage, and arbitrary job referrals that favored the business agent's family and political allies while penalizing opponents.

The Board upheld the section 69 complaint, ordering extensive remedial measures including the drafting and posting of clear hiring hall rules, the appointment of an independent auditor, and compensation for the complainant's lost wages.

The section 70 complaint regarding intimidation was dismissed for lack of evidence.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer engaged in a pattern of anti-union conduct, including contracting out bargaining unit work and transferring non-union employees to the unionized plant at higher wage rates during the period leading up to a representation vote on the termination of bargaining rights.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's actions, which also included tabling a discriminatory wage offer, violated the Labour Relations Act by undermining the union and interfering with the employees' ability to vote freely.

The Board ordered the employer to cease contracting out, stop discriminatory transfers, table a non-discriminatory wage offer, and directed that a new representation vote be held after three months.