7 total
Arbitration awards quashed as board unreasonably created new compensation criteria outside the collective agreement.
The applicant sought judicial review of two arbitration awards dealing with return to work grievances following a strike by academic staff.
The arbitration board had concluded that the collective agreement's workload provisions did not apply and developed its own principles to award additional compensation.
The Divisional Court found the board's decision unreasonable, as it ignored the language of the Return to Work Protocol and the collective agreement, which did not confer jurisdiction to create new compensation criteria.
The application for judicial review was granted, the awards were quashed, and the grievances were remitted to a different arbitration board.
Arbitrator's interim award of ex gratia payments upheld under collective agreement despite unreasonable LRA interpretation.
The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's interim award ordering it to make ex gratia payments to a grieving employee whose sick leave benefits had been terminated.
The Divisional Court held that while the arbitrator's interpretation of the Labour Relations Act as granting jurisdiction for the interim award was unreasonable, his alternative reliance on the collective agreement was not patently unreasonable.
The interim award was upheld and the application for judicial review was largely dismissed.
Union's motion to bifurcate hearing to determine union representation issue as a preliminary matter denied.
The union brought a motion to bifurcate the hearing of a discharge grievance to determine as a preliminary matter whether the employer violated the collective agreement by meeting with the grievor without union representation.
The employer opposed the motion, arguing that the evidence required to determine the preliminary issue was inextricably intertwined with the evidence on the merits.
The Grievance Settlement Board denied the motion, finding that the employer was entitled to establish its position by demonstrating the totality of its investigation, and that the overall considerations of practicality, economy, efficiency, and fairness did not favour bifurcation.
No binding settlement agreement was reached where the union required the grievor's signed acknowledgement as a precondition.
The employer and the union engaged in negotiations regarding the grievor's resignation and a severance package.
The employer argued that an oral agreement was reached when it agreed to include a waiver of a WSIB overpayment in the proposed memorandum of agreement.
The union argued that no final agreement was reached, as the grievor's signature on a written document was a precondition.
The arbitrator found that the communications between the parties did not result in a binding agreement, as the union had made it clear that the grievor's signed acknowledgement was required before it would agree to the settlement.
Board found no settlement was reached regarding the grievor's termination; remedies to be determined.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a brief decision determining that the parties did not reach a settlement concerning the termination of the grievor's employment with the LCBO in June 2003.
The Vice-Chair remained seised with the question of remedies required to put the grievor back in the position he would have been in had the employer not taken the position that he had resigned, with reasons to follow.
Judicial review of OLRB decision dismissed; finding of resignation rather than constructive dismissal was reasonable.
The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his appeal from an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay.
The Board had determined that the applicant resigned and was not constructively dismissed when asked to perform grinding operations.
The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found that the Board's conclusion was supported by the evidence.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Employer ordered to reinstate unlawfully discharged employee; workers' compensation benefits deducted from damages award.
The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the responding employer unlawfully discharged an employee for exercising rights under the Labour Relations Act.
The employer conceded liability for breaching section 76 of the Act.
The Board ordered the employee's reinstatement, subject to the employer's seasonal workforce size.
The Board also awarded damages for lost wages and benefits, finding the employee had reasonably mitigated his damages and the union's delay in filing was not unreasonable.
Notably, the Board held that workers' compensation benefits received by the employee during the damages period must be deducted from the award, applying the Supreme Court of Canada's reasoning in Sylvester v. British Columbia.
