Anne Gallop

The applicant alleged that her employment was terminated as a reprisal for filing an internal sexual harassment complaint against a co-worker, requesting security measures, and filing a human rights application against a previous employer.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had investigated and upheld the sexual harassment complaint, disciplined the co-worker, and accommodated the applicant's security requests.

The Tribunal concluded that the termination, which occurred 10.5 months later, was not a reprisal but was due to the applicant's unmanageable, insubordinate, and unprofessional behaviour in the workplace.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age and creed regarding his termination and pension plan provisions.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process because the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant understood the terms of the release, had legal advice, and was not under duress or subject to fraudulent misrepresentation.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age and creed.

Prior to the preliminary hearing, the applicant requested early production of numerous documents, and his son requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce only documents related to the negotiation of a full and final release, finding the other requests premature.

The Tribunal denied the son's request to intervene, noting he appeared to be seeking applicant status and would not provide assistance beyond what the applicant could provide.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after her employment was terminated.

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a severance package.

The applicant argued she signed the release under duress due to her medical condition, her husband's illness, and the pressure of relocating.

The Tribunal applied the Pritchard factors and found no evidence of duress or lack of capacity.

The Tribunal held that allowing the application to proceed in light of the clear language of the release would amount to an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a former shift supervisor, alleged age discrimination after his employment was terminated following the closure of the respondent's Burlington facility.

He claimed his age was a factor in his termination and in the respondent's failure to hire him for other positions at its Hamilton facility.

The Tribunal found that all salaried employees at the Burlington facility were terminated regardless of age.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish that age was a factor in the respondent's hiring decisions at the Hamilton facility, or that he was qualified for the positions filled by others.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to pursue a grievance relating to payment for relief work.

The union and the employer argued that the grievance was brought to the union's attention outside the 30-day time limit set out in the collective agreement.

The Board found that the applicant did not communicate his expectation for a grievance to be filed within the required timeframe.

The Board concluded that the union did not act in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner by refusing to file an untimely grievance.

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

The applicant brought an application against the responding party union, with the employer intervening.

Having regard to the Minutes of Settlement reached between the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.