Cynthia Watson

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against his employer and union, claiming his rate of pay was decreased when accommodated in a permanent position.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union entirely, finding no evidence that the creation of a new job classification was discriminatory.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations against the employer regarding the rate of pay and licence compensation.

However, the Tribunal permitted the applicant to provide further particulars regarding a newly raised allegation that he could perform his pre-injury duties with minor modifications.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination and reprisals by her union.

In an interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary issues.

The adjudicator ruled that the scope of the application was limited to the allegations raised in the original complaint and could not include post-complaint events without a formal amendment.

Two personal respondents were removed on consent after the union accepted vicarious liability, while a third remained due to specific allegations against him.

The Tribunal also made case management directions regarding the order of evidence and required the parties to provide detailed witness statements.

The applicants filed a complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to advance their grievances to arbitration.

The grievances concerned the method of integrating employees affected by a consolidation of operations, specifically the dovetailing of seniority.

The Board found that the union's interpretation of the collective agreement was not unreasonable and that there was no evidence of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 96 of the Act to dismiss the complaint without a hearing.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employers bargained in bad faith by insisting on terms regarding insurance and brokerage fees that were worse than those in the pre-existing service agreements.

The Board held that once the parties bargained a collective agreement (or had one imposed by arbitration), the service agreement terms on those subjects were superseded.

Following the expiry of the statutory freeze, the employers were entitled to alter those terms.

The bad faith bargaining complaint was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an inspector's refusal to make an order regarding his removal by the union from the Joint Health and Safety Committee.

The union removed him after he refused to apologize for maligning the worker co-chair, as ordered by a union trial board.

The Board dismissed the appeal, finding no prima facie breach of the Occupational Health and Safety Act because the union is not a 'person' under s. 62(5)(a), the appellant was not exercising a power or duty under the Act when he circulated a memo criticizing the co-chairs, and internal union proceedings are not an 'action or other proceeding' under s. 65(1)(d).

The Pembroke Civic Hospital applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, following a directive to close and transfer its operations to the Pembroke General Hospital.

The parties disputed the appropriate bargaining unit structure and the identity of the resulting bargaining agents for the intermingled employees.

The Board determined that the broader-based bargaining unit structure already in place at the surviving hospital (the General) was appropriate, noting its 25-year history of success and the general labour relations trend toward broader units.

The Board ordered a representation vote to allow employees to choose their bargaining agent from among all the affected trade unions.

The union applied to combine the full-time and part-time bargaining units at a supermarket.

Shortly after, an employee applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights for the full-time unit.

The Board determined that the termination application should be given procedural priority over the combination application to preserve the employees' representation rights.

On the merits of the termination application, the Board found that the petition in support of termination was voluntary, despite the presence of the employer's children in the bargaining unit and the manner in which signatures were collected.

A representation vote was ordered.

The applicant union sought an interim order declaring it the successor union and exclusive bargaining agent for employees in over 200 pending successor rights applications.

The applications arose from a massive inter-union dispute following the purported merger of various Ontario locals of the RWDSU with the Steelworkers, which was contested by the RWDSU International and the UFCW.

The dispute caused widespread confusion and collective bargaining paralysis, prompting employers and the Minister of Labour to seek clarification on which union to deal with.

The Board granted the interim order, declaring the Steelworkers as the interim exclusive bargaining agent to preserve orderly labour relations and allow the collective bargaining process to function until the main applications are resolved.