Brian D. Mulroney

In an application for certification by IBEW Local 1687, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined preliminary issues regarding standing and procedure.

The Board held that the Power Workers' Union (PWU) did not have standing to intervene, as its membership evidence did not confer representational authorization for this proceeding and it had not previously asserted bargaining rights over the affected employees.

The Board also declined to count the ballots from a prior representation vote, finding the results would not be dispositive of any remaining issues.

Finally, the Board established the order for determining the remaining issues, starting with whether a Letter of Understanding constituted a collective agreement bar.

The complainant brought a motion to amend his human rights complaint to add allegations of reprisal and family status discrimination.

The Commission brought a motion to allow a witness residing in Germany to testify by speaker telephone.

The Board of Inquiry granted both motions.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to amend the complaint as the respondents had adequate notice of the factual issues and would not be prejudiced.

The Board also interpreted section 5.2 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act as permitting parts of a hearing to be conducted electronically, finding that the respondents failed to establish significant prejudice from the witness testifying by telephone.

The complainant requested an adjournment of the human rights proceedings pending an application for judicial review of a prior decision that confirmed the adjudicator's jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The Commission and the respondents opposed the adjournment.

The adjudicator granted the adjournment, finding that the balance of convenience favoured it because a successful judicial review would require the entire matter to be reheard, and there was a possibility of minimizing delay by having the judicial review heard together with a similar pending case.

The complainant brought a motion challenging the jurisdiction of a newly assigned adjudicator to hear the human rights complaint, arguing that the original adjudicator was seized of the matter.

The Board of Inquiry held that section 35(8) of the Human Rights Code grants the Chair broad authority to reassign panels for any reason, including scheduling and workload demands, and that the parties were not legally entitled to prior notice of the reassignment.

The motion was dismissed and the hearing was ordered to proceed.