Pauline R. Seville

The applicant requested a hearing regarding a Review Officer's order that it was obliged to comply with the Pay Equity Act and adjust the respondent's job rate.

The applicant argued that Russel Metals Inc. was the true employer following a sale of business.

Russel Metals Inc. argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider the employer identity issue because it was not raised before the Review Officer.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the issue of the employer's identity was raised at Review Services before proceeding further.

The Tribunal previously dismissed parts of the employer's application relating to complaints about a Review Officer's conduct, leaving only a substantive workplace dispute about pay equity adjustments.

The Pay Equity Office filed a response seeking to participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file written submissions regarding the Office's standing to participate in the proceeding before convening the hearing.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her pay equity application.

She argued that the Tribunal misunderstood her job duties, that she was paid less than male enforcement clerks, and that the respondent obstructed her attempts to find replacement work.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the test for reconsideration.

She did not present new evidence that could not have been presented at the original hearing, did not show a change in circumstances, and did not argue the decision was wrong in law.

The Applicants, a group of Review Officers, challenged their job class placement under the employer's pay equity plan.

During a preliminary motion brought by the Respondent, evidence revealed that the Review Officers were treated as being in the ALR 19 job class for most of the pay equity process, despite being posted in the ALR 20 job class.

The Tribunal found the preliminary motion ill-founded based on this new evidence and ordered both parties to file new pleadings to properly address the issues revealed.

The applicant employer applied to revoke a Review Officer's Order requiring it to pay outstanding pay equity adjustments.

The employer argued that it was not required to make the payments because it had not received government funding, and sought to raise new arguments regarding the validity of the pay equity plan.

The Tribunal held that the employer could not raise new issues that were not canvassed at Review Services.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that a lack of government funding is not a valid defense under the Pay Equity Act to an employer's obligation to pay annual adjustments.

The application was dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The applicant sought to revoke a Review Officer's order declaring it a seeking employer under the Pay Equity Act.

The applicant argued it was not a public sector agency because it provided health promotion and prevention programs, not direct treatment for addiction.

The Tribunal found that the phrase 'services related to addiction' in the Act's Appendix is broad enough to encompass programs aimed at preventing addiction.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was confirmed as a seeking employer required to use the proxy method of evaluation.

In a dissenting opinion regarding an application for certification, Board Member Seville disagreed with the majority's finding that a single-store bargaining unit was inappropriate.

The majority had concluded that the employer's 11 fast-food franchise locations were functionally integrated, particularly regarding the production of baked goods, and that a single-store unit would cause serious labour relations problems.

The dissent argued that the Board lacked sufficient evidence regarding the separate corporate structures of each store and the parent franchisor to properly assess functional integration.

The dissent further contended that the production relationship did not preclude a single-store unit and that requiring an 11-store bargaining unit created an unreasonable impediment to the employees' right to organize.

Following the incapacity of a tribunal member, a newly constituted panel of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal determined how the hearing should proceed.

The Tribunal ordered that the oral submissions on a pending jurisdictional issue be remade, noting the limited time and expense involved, the new member's need to hear the arguments, and the broad importance of the jurisdictional issue to the Pay Equity Office's mandate.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicants did not constitute a female job class, and issued a summons to the Pay Equity Commissioner for various personnel records.

The applicants also issued a summons to a Review Officer.

The Pay Equity Office objected, arguing the summonses breached the qualified privilege under section 31 of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal found extraordinary circumstances existed to grant consent for the summonses because the applicants themselves were Review Officers, but limited the scope of documentary production to protect personal identifying information and quashed the applicants' summons for irrelevant documents.

The applicant, a social worker, alleged she was terminated and subjected to pre-termination reprisals by her employer, a hospital, after complaining of sexual harassment by her supervisor.

The hospital argued the termination was strictly due to financial restructuring and that sexual harassment falls outside the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the reprisal complaint, as the applicant genuinely believed the harassment was a workplace hazard.

However, the Board dismissed the complaint on the merits, finding the termination was a bona fide layoff driven by budget cuts and that the alleged pre-termination incidents did not constitute penalties or reprisals.

During a hearing regarding allegations of bad faith bargaining, the company's counsel sought to use a court reporter to record the proceedings.

The union objected, arguing it diminished the Board's control and prejudiced the union.

The Board ruled that the company could use a court reporter, but the transcript would not be the official record.

The Board further ordered that if the company's counsel intended to refer to the transcript during the hearing, they must notify the other parties and provide copies to the union and the Board at the union's and company's respective expenses.

The responding party employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the applicant's complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) for want of a prima facie case.

The applicant alleged she was terminated as a reprisal for reporting sexual harassment by her supervisor, arguing that sexual harassment constitutes a workplace hazard under the OHSA.

The employer argued the OHSA only covers physical hazards and that the Human Rights Code is the proper forum.

The majority of the Board dismissed the motion, finding it was not plain and obvious that the complaint would fail, as the OHSA's definition of 'hazard' is broad and could arguably encompass sexual harassment.

A dissenting member would have granted the motion, finding the OHSA inapplicable to sexual harassment.

The union filed an application alleging the employer breached the statutory freeze provisions under section 86(1) of the Labour Relations Act by discontinuing an employee's short-term sickness benefits after he was laid off.

The employer argued that under the benefit plan pamphlet, coverage terminated upon cessation of employment.

The Board applied the 'reasonable expectations' test and found that the pamphlet did not contemplate the termination of vested benefits upon the cessation of the employment relationship.

The Board concluded that the employer's actions breached section 86(1) and ordered the reinstatement of the benefits.

The applicant filed a complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging that she was sexually harassed at work, which caused her to feel unsafe, and that her subsequent termination was a reprisal for reporting the harassment.

The responding party brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for want of a prima facie case, arguing that sexual harassment is not covered by the Act.

The majority of the Board dismissed the preliminary motion, finding that the matter ought not to be dismissed without a hearing.

A dissenting member argued that the Board lacks jurisdiction because sexual harassment falls under the Human Rights Code, not the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The applicant union sought a declaration that Zellers was bound by the collective agreement between the union and Woolworth, arguing that a sale of a business had occurred under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

Woolworth had terminated its lease in a shopping mall, and the landlord subsequently negotiated a new lease with Zellers.

Zellers completely renovated the premises and hired its own employees, with only five former Woolworth employees being hired through a standard application process.

The Board applied an instrumental analysis and found that no operational entity or constituent components of Woolworth's business had passed to Zellers, other than the physical location.

The application was dismissed as no sale of a business took place.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit consisting of drivers and driver helpers at the employer's Mississauga warehouse.

The employer argued that its operations fell under federal jurisdiction due to inter-provincial transportation and that the proposed unit was inappropriate because it excluded warehouse personnel.

The Board held that the employer's operations fell within provincial jurisdiction, as its trucking activities were integral to its provincial distribution business and it did not operate as a common carrier.

However, the Board found the proposed bargaining unit inappropriate due to concerns about fragmentation and the shared community of interest between drivers and warehouse employees.

The Board indicated it would order a representation vote in the broader unit if requested by the union.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to determine whether North Yorkers for Disabled Persons Inc., a group home providing 24-hour attendant care to physically disabled adults, is a 'hospital' under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The employer argued that the care provided was not medical and that the residents were capable of directing their own care.

The Board concluded that the extensive personal care provided to the residents, who suffer from physical illnesses or injuries, constitutes 'observation, care or treatment' within the meaning of the Act.

The Board advised the Minister that the facility is a hospital under the Act, with one member dissenting.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer terminated four employees because they acted as inside organizers for the union.

The employer claimed the terminations were part of a normal course layoff due to restructuring and performance issues.

During the hearing, the employer sought to call a witness in reply to contradict the union's evidence, which the Board denied as improper case-splitting.

Applying the reverse onus under section 91(5) of the Labour Relations Act, the Board found the employer failed to establish that the decision to terminate the four organizers was free of anti-union animus.

The Board ordered the immediate reinstatement of the employees with full compensation.

The applicants, members of the responding party union, brought an application alleging that the union violated the Labour Relations Act by concluding local collective agreements at variance with the provincial agreement.

The union had obtained a mandate from its members to offer contractors a concession to work at 85% of the provincial wage rate to combat non-union competition.

The Employer Bargaining Agency and the Ontario Provincial Council subsequently authorized this variation retroactively.

The Board found that the applicants had standing, but dismissed the application, holding that the provincial bargaining agencies were empowered to amend the provincial agreement and that such amendments could legitimately be made retroactive.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of hotel employees, specifically excluding front desk staff.

The respondent employer opposed the exclusion, arguing that it would cause serious labour relations problems due to fragmentation and the cross-utilization of front desk staff for housekeeping and food service tasks.

Applying the Hospital for Sick Children test, the Ontario Labour Relations Board found the proposed unit appropriate, concluding that the employer's concerns about jurisdictional disputes and strike complications were speculative and could be accommodated in collective bargaining.

A certificate was issued to the applicant, with one Board Member dissenting on the basis that excluding front desk staff would unduly fragment labour relations.