113 total
Sexual harassment application dismissed as video evidence clearly contradicted the applicant's allegations.
The applicant, a security guard, alleged that her supervisor sexually harassed her by vulgarly grabbing his crotch during a shift.
The incident was captured on video surveillance.
After the applicant presented her evidence at the hearing, the respondent moved to dismiss the application on the basis that there was no prima facie case.
The adjudicator reviewed the video evidence and concluded that it clearly contradicted the applicant's description of the events, showing the supervisor merely adjusting his clothing for a split second.
Finding no reasonable basis for the allegations, the Tribunal dismissed the application without requiring the respondent to call evidence.
Denial of short-term sickness benefits for a work-related injury covered by WSIB is not discriminatory.
The grievor, who suffered a work-related injury, was accommodated by working four days a week.
He received WSIB benefits but experienced a wage shortfall for the fifth day.
The Employer denied him access to the Short Term Sickness Plan (STSP) for the fifth day, relying on article 41.5 of the collective agreement.
The Union grieved, arguing this constituted discrimination based on disability under the Human Rights Code, as employees with non-work-related disabilities could access the STSP.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the WSIB scheme and the STSP are two distinct plans with separate purposes.
Relying on arbitral jurisprudence, the Board held that providing differential benefits under separate schemes for work-related versus non-work-related disabilities does not amount to prohibited discrimination.
Employer's preliminary objection to strike particulars of harassment allegations from grievance dismissed.
The employer raised a preliminary objection to the content of the grievance, arguing that the union attempted to expand its scope by adding allegations of harassment by a co-worker and a Deputy Superintendent.
The union argued that these allegations were components of the harassment and discrimination complained of in the original grievance.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the employer's objection, finding that the particulars regarding the co-worker were not entirely unrelated to the grievance and that the issue of improper handling of an inmate's mail could be relevant if it was the result of discrimination or harassment.
Tribunal orders applicant to use disclosed documents and security video solely for the human rights proceeding.
The respondent filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking an order that documents and a DVD of security camera video disclosed to the applicant not be used for any purpose other than the human rights application.
The self-represented applicant opposed the request, misunderstanding it as preventing her from using the evidence in the proceeding.
The Tribunal clarified the nature of the request and ordered that the disclosed materials be used solely for the purposes of the present Application.
Union's request for automatic progression to Probation Officer 3 rejected; employer's post-and-fill proposal accepted.
Following a prior award finding the employer breached the collective agreement by failing to create and fill a Probation Officer 3 (PO3) position, the parties disputed the remedy.
The union argued that progression from PO2 to PO3 should be automatic over time, similar to the progression from PO1 to PO2.
The employer proposed to post and fill eight PO3 positions.
The arbitrator rejected the union's position, finding no basis in the collective agreement, practice, or class standards for automatic progression to PO3, and accepted the employer's proposal as compliant with the prior award.
Grievor on WSIB modified work schedule cannot use Short Term Sickness Plan for unworked days.
The grievor suffered a workplace injury and eventually returned to work on a modified schedule, working four days a week.
He sought to use the Short Term Sickness Plan (STSP) to cover his fifth day off.
The employer argued that Article 41.5 of the collective agreement precluded him from accessing the STSP because his absence was due to an injury for which a WSIB award had been made and his initial WSIB leave period had expired.
The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the employer, finding that the clear language of Article 41.5 applied to the grievor's situation, thereby preventing him from using the STSP for his regular, accommodation-related absences.
Grievance granted and employer's preliminary motion dismissed without reasons on agreement of the parties.
The applicant filed a complaint with the Public Service Grievance Board.
The parties agreed to a decision without precedent or prejudice and without providing reasons.
The Vice-Chair dismissed the employer's preliminary motion and granted the grievance, awarding the remedy sought by the grievor in oral submissions.
Grievance over job competition dismissed; union failed to prove grievor was demonstrably superior to senior applicant.
The union grieved the results of a job competition for a Probation Administrative Support position, arguing the grievor was improperly scored during the interview process and should have been awarded the position over a more senior applicant.
The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the interview scores and found no evidence of improper marking or bias.
The Board concluded that the union failed to establish that the grievor's qualifications and abilities exceeded those of the senior applicant by a substantial and demonstrable margin, as required by the collective agreement.
The grievance was dismissed.
Board upholds section 20(4) PSLRTA agreements and approves single bargaining unit for KPH site.
The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) applied for certification to represent an 'all employee' bargaining unit at the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital (KPH) site of the newly created Providence Continuing Care Centre (PCCC).
OPSEU also applied under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transitions Act (PSLRTA) to determine the appropriate bargaining units following the amalgamation of KPH and St. Mary's of the Lake Hospital (SMOL).
The Board found that agreements entered into between PCCC and other unions under section 20(4) of the PSLRTA were valid and precluded the Board from reconfiguring those specific bargaining units.
However, the Board determined that the single 'all employee' bargaining unit sought by OPSEU for the KPH site was appropriate for collective bargaining.
Employer's motion to dismiss unfair labour practice complaint for lack of prima facie case denied.
The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by cancelling its nursing services contracts shortly after a first collective agreement was imposed by interest arbitration.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for failing to disclose a prima facie case, arguing the employees were casual and suffered no change in status.
The Board dismissed the employer's motion, finding the union pled sufficient facts to put the employer to its defence regarding its motivation for cancelling the contracts.
The Board also denied the union's request for production of a subsequent bid document.
Work assignment dispute dismissed; hospital permitted to transfer testing work to nurses for operational efficiency.
The applicant union (OPSEU) filed a work assignment dispute under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, challenging the Hospital's decision to reassign respiratory and cardiac testing work from Cardio-Pulmonary Technicians to Registered Nurses and SEIU members.
The Hospital argued the transfer to a 'point of care' model would improve efficiency and patient care.
The Board dismissed the application, finding that the Hospital's decision was made for bona fide operational reasons and that the OPSEU collective agreement did not expressly prohibit the transfer of work out of the bargaining unit.
Constitutional objection dismissed; provincial operations not sufficiently integrated into federal works to oust provincial jurisdiction.
The applicants brought an application under sections 1(4) and 64 of the Labour Relations Act following the purchase of several farm co-operatives.
The responding trade unions raised a preliminary constitutional objection, arguing that the Ontario Labour Relations Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicants operated feed mills and seed cleaning mills, which are declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada under the Canada Wheat Board Act.
The Board applied the core/subsidiary integration test and found that the retail and other provincial operations were not sufficiently integrated into the federal works to bring the entire enterprise under federal jurisdiction.
The constitutional objection was dismissed, and the Board assumed jurisdiction to hear the merits of the application.
Site-specific bargaining units found appropriate for school cleaning staff despite employer's centralized administration.
The union applied for certification of employees providing cleaning services at two specific schools.
The employer argued for a broader municipal or regional bargaining unit, citing its integrated workforce and central administration.
The Board found that the site-specific bargaining units proposed by the union were appropriate, noting that the workforce was stable with limited interchange between locations, and that site-specific units would not cause serious labour relations problems.
