Patricia Hughes

The applicants filed objections to a review officer's order regarding the employer's pay equity plan, alleging undervaluation of their work and flawed comparison systems.

The Tribunal considered whether the applicants had established a prima facie case in their pleadings.

The majority held that the pleadings, though sparse, went beyond bald allegations and established a prima facie case, noting that non-union applicants have limited access to information about their employer's pay equity plan.

The Tribunal granted leave to provide further particulars and directed a second pre-hearing conference.

The Alternate Chair dissented, finding that the applications failed to plead material facts demonstrating how the evaluations were inappropriate.

The applicant union challenged section 6 of the Pay Equity Act as contravening the Charter.

The respondent employer argued the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the Charter challenge.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Cuddy Chicks, the Tribunal held that section 30 of its enabling statute and section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 grant it the jurisdiction and impose the duty to apply the Charter.

The Tribunal reserved its decision on whether it has jurisdiction under section 24(1) of the Charter to grant the requested remedy of amending the legislation.

The applicant City requested a hearing regarding a Review Officer's order directing the parties to complete and implement a pay equity plan.

The respondent union moved to dismiss the application for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal held that it has the authority to dismiss an application without a hearing on the merits if the written material fails to disclose a case that the Tribunal can remedy.

Finding that the City's application merely expressed general dissatisfaction with the job comparison system without alleging facts that would constitute a violation of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal dismissed the application for failure to establish a prima facie case.

The parties in several cases requested an adjournment pending the Tribunal's determination in the Women's College Hospital case.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment but imposed a condition requiring the applicants to inform the Tribunal within 30 days of the release of the Women's College Hospital decision whether they intend to proceed.

One member dissented on the imposition of the 30-day deadline.

The parties agreed to adjourn the application sine die pending a Court of Appeal decision in another matter.

The Tribunal proposed to terminate the application if not brought back within one year, and invited submissions.

The City and Library objected, arguing it interfered with their private agreement.

The Tribunal held that it has the authority to manage its caseload and impose limits on adjournments.

The Tribunal imposed the one-year limit, noting the parties could amend their agreement or request an extension if the Court of Appeal decision was delayed.

Following a decision finding the respondents liable for violations of the Labour Relations Act, the respondents requested a re-attendance to address the impact of an Employment Standards award on the Board's compensation order, and to amend the wording of the Notice to Employees.

The Board found the request regarding compensation premature, as the parties had not yet attempted to resolve the quantum of damages themselves.

The Board agreed to amend the Notice to Employees to accurately reflect the specific remedy granted in the decision.

The union filed complaints alleging that the employer failed to bargain in good faith, interfered with the union's representation rights, and engaged in an unlawful lock-out by transferring work to a related, unorganized entity.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer breached the Labour Relations Act by failing to send an informed committee to negotiations, failing to disclose its intention to move work, bargaining directly with employees, and locking out employees to undermine the union.

The Board ordered the employer to cease and desist, return the transferred work, compensate employees for lost wages, and provide the union with employee addresses.

The parties reached an agreement to adjourn the application sine die pending the release of the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in a related pay equity case.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the adjournment but noted the need to place a finite limit on such adjournments to manage its caseload.

The Tribunal ordered that unless the parties objected within 21 days, the matter would be adjourned sine die and terminated if neither party requested a hearing within one year.

The Tribunal considered a preliminary objection regarding whether an application must be processed through Review Services before being filed with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal ordered that notice of the preliminary objection be given to the Pay Equity Office to obtain its views on the ramifications of not following the process set out in the Pay Equity Act.

The complainant alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to adequately represent him after he was laid off and lost his seniority.

The complainant claimed he had arranged a fake lay-off with the employer to hide income from his ex-wife, but the employer later treated him as a new employee.

The union filed a grievance but withdrew it after the complainant stormed out of a meeting.

The Board rejected the complainant's version of events, finding he had voluntarily quit, and dismissed the complaint as there was no evidence the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.

The employer filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the union bargained in bad faith by failing to correct the employer's mistaken assumption that a cost-of-living allowance (COLA) freeze continued into the new collective agreement.

The employer argued the union knew of the mistake and capitalized on it.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding no misrepresentation by the union.

The Board held that the union was entitled to expect the employer to be familiar with the terms of the collective agreement and had no obligation to question the employer's monetary offer.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The Board held a hearing to address the respondent's legal name, allegations regarding membership evidence, and the reliability of the Form 9 declaration.

The Board found that the Form 9 declaration was reliable, as the declarant had made adequate inquiries regarding the collection of membership cards and fees.

However, following the counting of the pre-hearing representation vote, not more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant.

The application for certification was therefore dismissed.

The applicant union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

At the hearing, the union sought leave to file a supplementary statement containing new material facts, which the respondent opposed.

The Board denied leave, citing the strict time limits and requirements of Practice Note 18.

The union also moved for a direction based solely on the pleadings and the existence of a lengthy strike, which the Board also denied, noting that evidence was required to establish the statutory prerequisites.

Following these rulings, the union sought leave to withdraw its application, and the Board terminated the matter.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent occasional teachers and part-time supply instructors employed by the newly created French-language school board.

The respondent board argued it was not yet the employer of these individuals and raised issues regarding the bargaining unit description and the inclusion of certain employees transferred under recent legislation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant had the requisite appearance of support of not less than 35 per cent of the employees in the voting constituency and directed the taking of a pre-hearing representation vote, leaving the substantive issues to be resolved at a subsequent hearing.

The applicant union and respondent university sought the Board's approval for an alternative dispute resolution procedure to resolve approximately 650 challenges to the inclusion of certain persons in the proposed bargaining unit under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The procedure involved the appointment of a Vice-Chair to assist the parties and make rulings that would constitute settlements.

The Board approved the procedure, finding it fell within its authority under section 103(2)(h) of the Act to authorize a Vice-Chair to inquire into a matter and report back to the panel.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent.

The parties met with a Labour Relations Officer, settled all matters in dispute, and waived their right to a formal hearing.

The Board amended the applicant's name to correct a bona fide mistake and found it to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties on the appropriate bargaining unit and the filing of both membership evidence and a petition in opposition, the Board directed the taking of a representation vote.

The union filed an application alleging an unlawful lock-out.

During the proceedings, the individual respondent refused to produce unredacted application forms, prompting the Board to state a case to the Divisional Court.

The Court found the respondent had no lawful excuse but directed the Board to give her another opportunity to produce the documents.

At the reconvened hearing, the respondent requested an adjournment pending an application for leave to appeal the Court's decision.

The Board denied the adjournment, finding it would cause greater injustice to the applicant.

The respondent was given another opportunity to produce the documents but again refused.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The Board noted a discrepancy between the applicant's name and the name under which it had previously been found to be a trade union.

After a hearing, the Board was satisfied that the applicant was the same organization and met the definition of a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, despite the minor name variation.

The Board dismissed the certification application for voting constituency #1 as the union did not win the vote, but granted certification for voting constituency #2 where the union won the vote.

During a union certification campaign, a pre-hearing representation vote was held and the ballot box was sealed due to allegations of improper campaign material distributed by the intervener union.

The applicant union alleged the material was false, misleading, and contained discriminatory caricatures, arguing for a second vote.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objections regarding timeliness and withdrawn allegations.

On the merits, the Board found the campaign material, while containing crude stereotypes, was typical campaign propaganda that would not impair the employees' freedom of choice.

The Board directed that the ballot box be opened and the vote counted.

During a union certification hearing, the employer brought a motion requesting that the panel chair disqualify herself due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The motion was based on a comment the chair made regarding the authenticity of a signature on a counter-petition.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the objective test for reasonable apprehension of bias and concluded that a reasonably well-informed person would not apprehend bias, as the comment merely indicated the trend of the evidence and the chair explicitly assured counsel they would have an opportunity to challenge it.

The motion was dismissed and the hearing was ordered to continue.