Andrea Bowker

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

In her Reply, the applicant requested that three individuals be removed as respondents to the application.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordered the removal of the specified respondents, and directed that the style of cause be amended accordingly.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and membership in a vocational association based on disability and sex, as well as reprisal.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer this application pending the determination of an earlier 2009 application involving similar facts and issues, notably concerning alleged sexual harassment by a personal respondent and a failure to investigate.

Finding significant overlap between the two matters, the Tribunal concluded that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious manner of proceeding to avoid inconsistent decisions and prejudice to the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and subsequently requested to amend the application to attach numerous documents.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, noting that an amendment is for asserting new allegations of discrimination, not for introducing documentary evidence, and that the applicant failed to set out the material facts of any new allegations.

The denial was without prejudice to the applicant's right to bring a compliant request.

The applicant alleged that his former employer discriminated against him on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and disability.

He claimed his supervisor mistreated him because he is a continental African and that his employment was terminated following a workplace injury.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The evidence showed that the supervisor treated all employees harshly, regardless of their background.

Furthermore, the employer terminated the applicant's employment after discovering he was working for another employer while claiming to be completely disabled from performing even modified duties for the respondent.

The application was dismissed.

The union applied for further disclosure from the employer relating to persons working in information technology or the Shared Services Bureau.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the employer to provide its position on whether each claimed person is performing union-type work, the facts relied upon to justify its position, and the status of persons whose contracts have expired.

The union sought an interim order for disclosure relating to the rest of the Ontario Public Service regarding people performing bargaining-unit work who are not formally designated as employees.

The employer opposed the broad scope and proposed limiting disclosure to the Ministry of Health.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that disclosure at this stage should be limited to the Ministry of Health, as the union had not demonstrated reasonable grounds to suspect substantial non-compliance in other ministries not mentioned in the provincial auditor's report.

The Board directed the employer to provide the requested disclosure for the Ministry of Health.

The union sought disclosure of information regarding non-employees engaged by the employer.

Following previous disclosure orders, the parties agreed to a consent order.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued the consent order, which detailed the specific information to be disclosed, timelines for disclosure, and exclusions for certain categories of workers, such as those involved in labour relations or working in a minister's office.

The association filed a policy grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by using non-bargaining unit members (such as consultants and agency employees) to perform bargaining unit work.

The association requested production of documents detailing these arrangements.

The employer objected, characterizing the request as a fishing expedition.

Relying on a provincial auditor's report that found heavy reliance on consultants in six ministries, the Grievance Settlement Board found reasonable grounds to suspect a violation and ordered initial disclosure of information for one of the six ministries to balance the need for relevant information with expedition and cost.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding the Grievance Settlement Board's jurisdiction to make determinations about Orders-in-Council, classifications, and management/excluded employees in a policy grievance concerning the interpretation of a recognition clause.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objections as premature, finding that defining the scope of remedial authority at this stage would not narrow the evidence or shorten the proceedings.

The employer was invited to renew its jurisdictional arguments if and when the union seeks relief that may be beyond the Board's jurisdiction.

In a complex policy grievance involving the history of collective bargaining and legislative history, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a detailed production order.

The parties were ordered to use their best efforts to locate and produce extensive documentation relating to the creation of bargaining units, classifications, and various agreements by a specified date.

The Board also ordered that no party would be permitted to rely on documents not produced by the deadline without consent or a convincing reason.

The union brought an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging a sale of business and seeking a related employer declaration after the Red Cross ceased its homemaking operations and the work was reassigned by the Community Care Access Centre (CCAC) to other service providers.

The responding parties brought a Rule 46 request to dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board declined to dismiss the section 69 sale of business application on a prima facie basis, finding that it could not conclude without evidence that only work, rather than part of a business, was transferred.

However, the Board dismissed the section 1(4) related employer application, holding that even if common control and direction existed, it would not exercise its discretion to make a declaration because the CCAC's control was regulatory and statutory, and the relationship was a bona fide subcontracting arrangement rather than an artificial erosion of bargaining rights.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The intervenor unions argued the application should be dismissed on grounds of estoppel, fraud, and abuse of process, alleging the applicant breached a prior settlement agreement by failing to negotiate a collective agreement with the employer.

The Board dismissed these arguments, holding that estoppel cannot prevent the operation of a public statute like the Labour Relations Act, and that the applicant's conduct did not amount to fraud or an abuse of process as there was no misrepresentation or violation of the Act.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the union violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by withdrawing his termination grievance and other grievances related to outsourcing.

The Board found that the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.

The union reasonably believed the termination grievance could not succeed because the applicant had left a recorded message refusing to work his scheduled shift, which the employer treated as a resignation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants alleged that the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers violated the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by imposing a receivership on the Ontario Provincial Conference.

The Board found that the parent union lacked just cause to impose the receivership, as it was attempting to use its constitutional power to force the local union to abandon its statutory rights and surrender in an ongoing dispute over local autonomy.

The receivership was declared null and void.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a brief decision to correct an error in a previous decision dated November 6, 2000.

The correction clarified a bracketed phrase in paragraph 22 regarding the non-unionized status of former Charbonneau employees.

The applicant employer applied under section 69 and subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking a Board declaration regarding the union status of employees at a newly acquired, non-unionized HVAC business.

The applicant argued that the employees were intermingled and requested a representation vote.

The Board dismissed the application, following established jurisprudence that section 69(6) and subsection 1(4) only apply when a predecessor employer had a collective bargaining relationship with a trade union.

The Board further noted that even if it had jurisdiction, it would defer the matter to arbitration to interpret the existing collective agreement's recognition clause.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party employer failed to make required benefit contributions and file monthly reports.

The responding party did not attend the hearing.

The Board found the responding party bound by the collective agreement and ordered it to pay $20,054.07, comprising unpaid contributions, interest, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a municipal-wide bargaining unit of employees of a cleaning contractor in the City of London.

The responding party employer argued for a site-specific bargaining unit covering only ten specific locations, citing concerns about flexibility in bidding on future contracts.

The Board applied its established test for determining appropriate bargaining units, noting a strong aversion to fragmentation and a presumption that broader, municipal-wide units are generally appropriate unless they cause serious labour relations problems.

The Board found the employer's proposed unit inappropriate, particularly as it would have excluded a single employee at an eleventh site, and certified the union for the municipal-wide unit.

The applicant union sought production of documents from the responding parties in an application under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

Following a telephone conference, the Board issued directions requiring the Community Care Access Centre and the service providers to produce various internal documents, written instructions, standard forms, and schedules to service agreements, subject to certain confidentiality conditions.

The Board also set out the preliminary matters to be dealt with at the upcoming hearing.

The applicant referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board heard submissions on how the hearing should proceed and issued procedural directions, including notice to an affected union, filing of interventions, specification of claims related to a pending jurisdictional dispute, and provision of particulars regarding contractual relations and work assignments.

The matter was adjourned.