Cathy Lace

The Association objected to a Review Officer's decision not to order the City to increase the pay equity adjustment for the Communication Operator job class.

The parties had negotiated a Pay Equity Plan which was approved by City Council, but the City subsequently refused to execute it, arguing that the Plan's provision for an hourly wage adjustment did not reflect the parties' intention to equalize annual salaries (a 'mutual mistake').

The Tribunal held that the Plan was binding on the City, as it had been properly ratified by Council.

The Tribunal rejected the application of the equitable doctrine of mutual mistake in the labour relations context, finding that parties are bound by the objective meaning of their written agreements.

The City was ordered to pay the hourly adjustments specified in the Plan, with interest on unpaid amounts.

The applicant union brought a motion for the production of confidential reports made to the City's Board of Control and Council regarding pay equity.

The City resisted production, arguing the reports were protected by Wigmore privilege because they were dealt with in-camera.

The Tribunal ordered production, finding that the City failed to establish the fourth precondition of the Wigmore test, as the potential injury to future confidential communications did not outweigh the benefit to the administration of justice in correctly disposing of the litigation.

The employers brought a preliminary motion arguing that the union was estopped from advancing the argument that proxy pay equity plans applied to retirement home employees, relying on a 2004 Letter of Understanding.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Letter of Understanding merely suspended the union's pursuit of pay equity adjustments pending the final legal outcome of a related case, and did not restrict the legal arguments the union could subsequently raise.

The applicant, Laurie Parent, objected to her Application for Review Services being combined with another application regarding the employer's 2005 Pay Equity Plan.

The Tribunal denied her request to refer the matter back to Review Services, noting that under section 17 of the Pay Equity Act, objections to a plan posted pursuant to section 16(4) must be heard by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal also amended the style of cause to reflect that the Civic Association of Non-Union Employees at the City of Windsor (CANUE) represents all other applicants.

CANUE requested an extension of time to file its application to allow for discussions with the employer.

The Tribunal indicated its inclination to grant the extension to September 30, 2011, but directed Parent to advise within 15 days if she objected to the extension.

The WSIB disciplined the grievor, a union president, for inappropriate comments made to a union steward while they were off-duty and engaged in union business.

The union grieved the discipline and brought a preliminary motion arguing the employer had no authority to discipline for off-duty conduct.

The Grievance Settlement Board also considered a motion for production of documents related to a human rights complaint.

The Board ordered the production of the human rights pleadings.

On the main preliminary issue, the Board held that the conduct occurred entirely within the union committee and had no nexus to the employer's legitimate interests.

The employer therefore had no authority to discipline the grievor, and the discipline was set aside.

The applicant, which operates both a nursing home and a retirement home, sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal had ruled that because the applicant held a nursing home license, its entire operation, including the private retirement home, was a 'public sector employer' subject to the proxy method of comparison under the Pay Equity Act.

The Divisional Court quashed the Tribunal's decision, finding that a literal interpretation of the statute led to absurd and unfair results, such as forcing a private, unfunded retirement home to use a public sector pay equity method simply because of common ownership with a nursing home.

The Court held that the definition must be read to apply only to the extent of the nursing home operations.

The Applicants, owners and operators of adjoining nursing homes and retirement homes, objected to Review Officers' Orders declaring them to be 'seeking employers' under Part III.2 of the Pay Equity Act in respect of all employees in their retirement communities.

The Applicants argued that the proxy method of pay equity comparison should only apply to their nursing home operations, which are publicly funded and regulated, and not to their private retirement home operations.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that because each retirement community was operated by a single legal entity that held a nursing home licence, the entire entity was a 'public sector' employer under the Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the 'establishment' for pay equity purposes included all employees of the employer, regardless of whether they worked in the nursing home or the retirement home.

The Review Officers' Orders were confirmed.

Following the amalgamation of seven municipalities into the new City of Toronto, the Ontario Labour Relations Board was asked to determine the appropriate bargaining unit structures under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The Board eliminated a small craft unit of operating engineers at a landfill site, integrating them into the broader outside workers unit.

The Board rejected proposals to create a separate health department bargaining unit and a separate nurses' unit within the health department, finding that these employees were appropriately situated within the larger municipal inside workers unit.

However, the Board preserved the separate stand-alone bargaining unit for employees of the Toronto Parking Authority, noting its status as a distinct local board and successor employer under the legislation.

The applicants filed multiple applications before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal against their union and employer.

Following a letter from the lead applicant, the Tribunal dismissed the applications.

A related application between the union and the employer remained adjourned sine die.

The Association of Law Officers of the Crown applied for certification to represent articling students employed by the Crown.

OPSEU intervened, claiming it already held bargaining rights for these students under an Order-in-Council establishing bargaining units for Crown employees.

The applicants argued that articling students fell into a residual bargaining unit and challenged OPSEU's representation.

The Board interpreted the statutory framework and Orders-in-Council, concluding that articling students were properly included in the first bargaining unit for which OPSEU was designated as the bargaining agent.

Consequently, the certification application was untimely, and the related applications to terminate bargaining rights and alleging unfair labour practices were dismissed.

The union filed an application seeking a declaration that the Crown was the employer of its members working at Family and Children's Services for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act.

The Crown raised a preliminary objection, arguing that subsection 1.1 of the Act prevented the Tribunal from finding the Crown to be the employer.

The Tribunal held that the exception in subsection 1.1(4)(b) applied because the issue of the Crown's status as employer had been raised in a previous application filed before December 18, 1991.

The preliminary objection was dismissed and the union's application was permitted to proceed.

One member dissented.

The Employer objected to a Review Officer's Order finding it failed to maintain pay equity for female job classes represented by CUPE 1734.

The Employer argued that wage disparities were due to differences in bargaining strength under s. 8(2) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal held that s. 8(2) cannot be relied upon because pay equity had not yet been achieved for all employees in the establishment, specifically the teachers.

The Tribunal also found that CUPE 1734 was not complicit in the Employer's contravention, as the union had attempted to negotiate maintenance and subsequently filed a complaint.

The Employer's application was dismissed and the Order confirmed, except for the requirement that the union post a notice.

The Tribunal heard a preliminary objection by the Crown regarding its jurisdiction to enforce Review Officer Orders declaring the Crown as the employer for pay equity purposes.

The Crown argued that recent amendments to the Pay Equity Act, specifically section 1.1, invalidated the Orders.

The Union argued for a broad interpretation of the exceptions in section 1.1(4)(b) due to an agreement to hold applications in abeyance.

The Tribunal found the statutory language clear and unambiguous, concluding it lacked jurisdiction to enforce the Orders, subject to pending Charter arguments.

The matters were adjourned sine die.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services requested a hearing to review an order naming it as the employer for pay equity purposes of employees at the Kingston-Frontenac Children's Aid Society.

The Tribunal examined the relationship between the Ministry and the CAS, focusing on financial control, responsibility for compensation practices, and determination of services provided.

The Tribunal found that the Ministry exercises fundamental control over the CAS's finances, services, and compensation practices, despite the CAS having routine control over day-to-day operations.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Ministry is the employer for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act and directed the Ministry and the union to negotiate a pay equity plan.

The applicant City requested a hearing regarding a Review Officer's order directing the parties to complete and implement a pay equity plan.

The respondent union moved to dismiss the application for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal held that it has the authority to dismiss an application without a hearing on the merits if the written material fails to disclose a case that the Tribunal can remedy.

Finding that the City's application merely expressed general dissatisfaction with the job comparison system without alleging facts that would constitute a violation of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal dismissed the application for failure to establish a prima facie case.

The Ottawa Newspaper Guild applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of approximately 13 employees in the computer information services department of The Ottawa Citizen.

The employer opposed the application, arguing that a tag-end unit or a combined unit with the advertising department was appropriate.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employees in the computer information services department shared a sufficient community of interest to form a viable bargaining unit.

Given the employer's long history of fragmented, departmental bargaining units without serious labour relations difficulties, the Board concluded that the proposed departmental unit was appropriate and granted the application.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of service workers at the respondent hospital.

The hospital argued that the unit should be broader and include various technical, paramedical, and clerical classifications.

The Board reviewed the history and principles of bargaining unit determination in the hospital sector.

It concluded that Registered Nursing Assistants (RNA's) and Nursing Technicians should be included in the service unit due to established collective bargaining practice.

However, other technical personnel, lab assistants, and ward clerks were excluded, as they could appropriately be placed in paramedical or clerical units without affecting the viability of the service unit.

The union requested written reasons for a remedial order previously issued by the Board.

The employer argued the Board was not obligated to provide them.

The Board held that section 17 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act requires it to provide written reasons when requested by a party.

The Board briefly outlined its reasons for the remedial order, finding that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by intending not to make a collective agreement to let bargaining rights lapse, failing to reinstate striking employees who unconditionally applied to return to work, and threatening reprisal against witnesses who testified before the Board.