Alan Whyte

The applicant, a university professor, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, sex, and reprisal.

The respondent university's faculty association had also filed several grievances on behalf of the applicant relating to similar factual issues, including harassment and retaliatory discipline.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the completion of the grievance proceedings.

Finding significant factual overlap and the potential for inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application until the grievance process concluded.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend a paragraph in their Response regarding statistics related to MA and PhD applications.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the amendment was minor, the proceedings had not yet advanced to a hearing, and the applicant would have the opportunity to file an amended Reply.

During a hearing for a related employer and sale of business application, the applicant union sought to adduce evidence from a witness regarding an alleged scheme by the responding parties' principals to avoid the union's bargaining rights.

The responding parties objected, arguing that the union had failed to put this allegation to their key witness during his earlier cross-examination, in violation of the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

The Board upheld the objection, finding that the union's failure to give the witness an opportunity to respond to the serious allegation of a scheme caused considerable prejudice.

Given the late stage of the proceedings and the lack of explanation for the delay, the Board barred the union from calling or relying on evidence relating to the witness's involvement in the alleged scheme.

The applicant union filed displacement applications for certification seeking to represent service employees at the Trenton Memorial Hospital site of the Quinte Healthcare Corporation.

The responding hospital and the incumbent union argued the applications were barred by an agreement made under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 (PSLRTA) following a hospital amalgamation.

The Board found that the incumbent union, acting as the bargaining agent for multiple existing bargaining units, could validly enter into a section 20(2) PSLRTA agreement with the employer to consolidate the units.

As a valid agreement was in effect prior to the application date, the applications were barred and dismissed without a representation vote.

The applicant employer sought a determination under section 27 of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 as to whether previously unrepresented employees, who were included in a bargaining unit following restructuring, had the right to strike during bargaining for a first collective agreement.

The employer argued that their terms and conditions of employment, which did not include the right to strike, continued under section 24(4).

The Board held that once included in the bargaining unit, the employees were represented by the union and governed by the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Consequently, they possessed the right to participate in a lawful strike called by the union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a bottom-line decision regarding the restructuring of bargaining units at the newly amalgamated City of Kingston under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The Board directed the preservation of the ONA nurses' unit and a separate utilities unit represented by the IBEW.

Transit workers represented by the CAW were folded into a broader all-employee unit proposed by CUPE.

The Board also defined the firefighters' unit and directed the parties to finalize the remaining bargaining unit descriptions with the assistance of a Board Officer.

The union applied for certification shortly after consenting to a termination of its bargaining rights due to a failure to give timely notice to bargain.

The employer argued the new application was an abuse of process and should be barred for six months under the Board's procedural powers.

The Board held that the application was timely under section 5 of the Labour Relations Act and that it lacked the discretion to impose a bar outside the specific circumstances of section 105(2)(i).

The Board prioritized the employees' desire for collective bargaining and certified the union without a representation vote.

The applicant, the sole employee in the bargaining unit, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union challenged the applicant's status to bring the application, arguing he was not a member in good standing.

The Board found the applicant had status.

However, the Board dismissed the application on the basis that the petition did not represent a voluntary expression of employee wishes, as the applicant had discussed the application with the employer prior to filing and the employer had offered to assist with legal costs, constituting employer interference.

A dissenting Board member would have found the petition voluntary and ordered a vote.

The applicant union requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision that found three Bindery Supervisors did not exercise managerial functions and should be included in the bargaining unit.

The union sought to introduce evidence from one of the supervisors, obtained during a subsequent phase of the hearing, arguing it contradicted the Board's findings.

The Board dismissed the request, holding that the evidence was available during the initial phase of the hearing and could have been adduced with due diligence.

A dissenting member would have granted the reconsideration, arguing the Board has a statutory obligation to determine the appropriate bargaining unit regardless of when the evidence is presented.