Pamela A. Chapman

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

The respondent employer, Bell Technical Solutions Inc. (BTS), brought a preliminary request to dismiss the application on the basis that its labour relations fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal applied the derivative federal jurisdiction test and found that BTS, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bell Canada, performs work that is integral to Bell's core federal telecommunications undertaking.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that BTS's labour relations are federally regulated, the provincial Human Rights Code does not apply, and the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after being permanently deferred from donating stem cells by Canadian Blood Services (CBS).

CBS brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that stem cell donor screening falls under federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the federal government has constitutional authority to regulate stem cell donations under its criminal law and POGG powers.

Applying the doctrine of paramountcy, the Tribunal concluded that applying provincial human rights legislation to federally-regulated donor selection criteria would frustrate the federal purpose of maintaining a safe, national stem cell transplant system.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The employee filed an application for review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision denying his claim for termination pay on the basis of wilful misconduct.

A hearing was scheduled, but neither the employee nor the employer attended.

As the employee bore the onus of establishing a basis for the claim, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application due to his failure to attend.

The applicant, a corporate director, sought review of a Director Order to Pay issued by the Ministry of Labour for unpaid wages and vacation pay owed to a former employee.

At the hearing, the applicant and the employee reached a settlement regarding the disposition of the funds paid into trust.

The Board ordered the funds held in trust to be disbursed according to the settlement, with $2,000 paid to the employee and $977.01 returned to the applicant.

The parties reached a settlement regarding compensation issues arising from a prior Board decision finding violations of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant union requested a consent order reflecting the settlement terms.

The Board issued the consent order, directing the responding party to reimburse affected drivers for plate rental fees paid in excess of $100 per month during a specified 15-month period, and setting out a payment schedule and notice requirements.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing due to a sudden change in counsel and lack of time to prepare.

The responding party employee agreed to the adjournment on the condition that the applicant pay his costs of the day.

The Board granted the adjournment on consent, ordering the applicant to pay $150 in costs to the responding party employee, and set a new hearing date.

The applicant, a waitress, sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision refusing her termination pay on the basis of wilful misconduct.

The employer alleged she participated in a card game with customers and failed to report another employee looking at payroll records.

The employer did not attend the hearing.

The Board found the applicant's limited involvement in the alleged viewing of pay statements by another employee did not meet the standard of wilful misconduct.

The application was allowed and the employer was ordered to pay termination pay in lieu of notice.

The employer applicants filed an application under section 114(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking a determination that its taxicab drivers were independent contractors and not employees.

The employer argued that the drivers were not employees and therefore not subject to the collective agreement or union dues deduction.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed the relationship between the drivers and the employer, noting the employer's control over taxi plates, dispatch services, and working rules.

The Board concluded that the drivers were economically dependent on the employer and operated under terms more closely resembling an employment relationship.

The application was dismissed, and the drivers were found to be dependent contractors and employees within the meaning of the Act.

The employer filed a request for reconsideration of a previous Board decision regarding an employment standards complaint.

The request was filed beyond the deadline established by Rule 90 of the Board's Rules of Procedure without permission or explanation for the delay.

The Board found that the request failed to establish any grounds for reconsideration, as the employer sought to rely on a statement from another employee who was not called to give evidence at the original hearing.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant appealed a decision of an Employment Standards Officer.

The applicant advised he would not attend the scheduled hearing in Ottawa and requested a decision based on documents.

The Board adjourned the hearing to Toronto and warned the applicant that failure to attend and adduce evidence would result in the dismissal of the application, as the documents filed were insufficient to reverse the officer's decision.

The union applied for a declaration that Ottawa Valley Autistic Homes is a 'hospital' under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA) and that a lock-out by the employer was illegal.

The Board advised the Minister that the agency, which provides residential and vocational services to autistic individuals, is an institution operated for the observation, care, or treatment of persons afflicted with a physical or mental illness, and thus qualifies as a hospital.

However, the Board dismissed the application for a declaration of an illegal lock-out, finding that the lock-out was legal under the Labour Relations Act until the Minister formally replaced the initial no-board report with a notice under the HLDAA.

The applicant brought an employment standards appeal before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The parties reached a settlement, and the Board ordered the matter terminated.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's order requiring it to pay unpaid wages and termination pay to a former waitress.

The employee claimed she was required to report to work 30 minutes before her scheduled shifts to prepare the restaurant, for which she was not paid.

The employer conceded that employees were required to arrive early to change into uniforms but disputed that work was performed.

The Board accepted the employee's evidence that she performed work during this pre-shift period, finding it constituted work under the Employment Standards Act.

The employer also conceded it owed termination pay.

The application for review was dismissed and the order to pay was upheld.

The applicant union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the process of collective bargaining had been unsuccessful for reasons enumerated in section 43(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board granted the application and directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration, with reasons to follow.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision amending the style of cause to reflect the correct name of the applicant union.

The responding party requested reconsideration of the Board's procedural directions issued on October 12, 2000, which required it to state its position on compensation for unlawful lease rates and appointed a Labour Relations Officer.

The responding party argued the directions were issued without notice and would interfere with bargaining.

The Board denied the request for reconsideration, noting the responding party was already required to state its position by an earlier order and that firm intervention was necessary to resolve the lengthy dispute.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision ordering it to pay eight weeks' termination pay to the responding employee.

The employer's business was closing, and the employee, as office coordinator, was aware of the impending closure and assisted in winding down operations.

However, the employer never provided the employee with written notice of her termination.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application for review, holding that section 57(1)(h) of the Employment Standards Act strictly requires notice of termination to be in writing.

Because no written notice was provided, the employer was required to pay termination pay in lieu of notice.

The applicant employer sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's order requiring it to pay unpaid wages, overtime, unauthorized deductions, and termination pay to a former restaurant employee.

The Board found that the employee worked for two separate employers when she occasionally worked at a second restaurant, meaning those hours should not be combined for overtime calculation.

However, the Board upheld the order regarding unauthorized deductions for food and beverages, as no written authorization was obtained.

The Board also upheld the termination pay order, finding the employer failed to prove it made a clear offer of reasonable alternate work to the employee.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision.

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the disbursement of funds held in trust by the Director in accordance with the settlement, with amounts paid to the employer, the employees, and the Consolidated Revenue Fund for administrative fees.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision.

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board ordered the disbursement of funds held in trust by the Director in accordance with the settlement, with $1,000 returned to the employer, $2,039.94 paid to the employee, and the administrative fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.