Brian P. Nolan

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking clarification of the role of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (OECTA) in the human rights application.

The applicant requested that OECTA either be declared a party and directed to provide information, or be removed as an addressee and participant.

OECTA confirmed it was not named as a respondent and had no intention of seeking intervention status.

The Tribunal ordered that OECTA receive no further notices of the proceedings pursuant to Rule 3.14 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Minister of Education brought a Stated Case asking the Divisional Court to determine whether the Education Act permits school boards to pay for life insurance and health benefits for retired employees over 65 years of age.

The Minister argued that the Act only permits payments to current employees and that specific statutory authority is required for such expenditures.

The Court held that while ss. 177(3) and 177(4) do not authorize these payments, other sections of the Act, including ss. 58.5(1), 170(1)18, 171(1)3, and 177(1), when read together and in context, provide the necessary authority.

The Court found that school boards have the power to negotiate and pay for post-retirement benefits as part of employee compensation packages.

The appellant teachers' union appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed an arbitrator's award regarding the interpretation of a wage freeze provision under the Social Contract Act.

The Divisional Court had held that the arbitrator was bound by a previous Court of Appeal decision that upheld a different arbitrator's conflicting interpretation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that its previous decision only determined that the prior arbitrator's interpretation was not patently unreasonable, not that it was the only correct interpretation.

The Court found that the current arbitrator's interpretation was also not patently unreasonable and reinstated the award.

The applicant union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding party argued that the employees who cast ballots were not performing construction work and were covered by an existing collective agreement with SEIU Local 210.

The Board found that the employees were erecting a permanent steel stud wall, which constitutes construction work, not maintenance.

The Board also determined that the SEIU collective agreement only covered maintenance work and therefore did not bar the application.

As more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board ordered the issuance of certificates for the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector and all other sectors in the relevant geographic area.

The union applied for certification to represent carpenters employed by the newly amalgamated Greater Essex County District School Board.

The school board argued the application was barred by the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997, which restricted the geographic scope of the union's successor bargaining rights to the City of Windsor.

The Board held that the successor rights provisions did not bar a regular certification application to expand bargaining rights.

The Board also found that recent amendments excluding school boards as 'non-construction employers' did not apply retroactively to this pending application.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit, excluding employees outside the ICI sector already covered by subsisting agreements, and referred the matter to resolve the voters' list.

The applicant filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Subsequently, the definition of employer in section 126 of the Act was amended.

The responding party argued that the new definition should apply, while the applicant argued that the definition in effect at the time of filing should apply.

The Board held that the definition of employer as it existed on the date of filing applies, as there was no clear legislative intent to give the amendment retroactive effect.

The union filed a construction grievance alleging the employer failed to pay wage increases under the Provincial Agreement.

The employer argued the Social Contract Act applied, freezing compensation, and that the Board lacked jurisdiction due to the Act's adjudication provisions.

The Board held it had jurisdiction to interpret the application of the Act to the collective agreement.

The Board found the Social Contract Act applied to the ICI sector employees of the school board.

However, for two grievors earning less than $30,000 annually from the employer, the Act's 'fail safe' wage freeze did not apply, and they were entitled to the negotiated wage increases.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the duty to bargain in good faith by refusing to negotiate pension issues separately from a joint union committee.

The employer argued the union had irrevocably ceded its right to bargain pensions separately by participating in the joint committee in previous rounds.

The Board held that the union was entitled to unilaterally withdraw from the joint committee with adequate notice.

The employer violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by pressing its demand for joint bargaining to impasse and refusing to receive the union's pension proposals.

However, the employer's direct communications with employees regarding its bargaining position were found to be permissible.

The parents of a child with severe autism and mental retardation appealed the school board's Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) decision identifying the child as having a multiple exceptionality ('Intellectual (Trainable Retarded) - Communication (Autism)').

The parents argued the child should be identified solely as 'Communication (Autism)' to ensure appropriate programming and placement.

The Tribunal heard evidence from multiple experts and educators, concluding that the child suffers from both severe mental retardation and severe autism.

The Tribunal found the multiple exceptionality identification to be correct and that the child's current placement and program were appropriate and meeting the child's needs.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of speech pathologists, psychologists, psychometrists, and social worker/attendance counsellors employed by the respondent school board.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description.

The Board considered whether a unit defined by specific job classifications was appropriate, noting its general aversion to fragmentation.

However, given the history of separate representation for such support personnel in the school board sector and the agreement of the parties, the Board found the proposed unit appropriate.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union sought certification for crews on commercial fishing boats operating on Lake Erie.

The respondent boat owners raised preliminary objections, arguing that fishing crews are excluded from the Ontario Labour Relations Act as persons employed in 'hunting or trapping' under section 2(b), and alternatively, that labour relations in the fishing industry fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction pursuant to the 'Navigation and Shipping' or 'Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries' powers of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed both objections.

The Board held that fishing is distinct from hunting and trapping, and that the intra-provincial commercial fishing operations are not integral to the federal powers over navigation or the preservation of fisheries as a natural resource.

Consequently, the Board asserted jurisdiction to hear the certification applications.

The applicant union filed four applications for certification.

A threshold issue was whether the applicant was a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1)(p) of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondents argued that the applicant was not a trade union because its constitution allowed vessel owners (alleged to be management) to join, and because some members were not employees.

The Board rejected these arguments, holding that the phrase 'organization of employees' does not mean 'organization of employees only', and that the presence of managerial members does not automatically preclude trade union status.

The Board found that the applicant had followed the necessary steps to form a trade union and declared it to be a trade union under the Act.