Cynthia Wilkey

The employer posted a pay equity plan that purported to cover employees in two newly certified bargaining units without negotiating with the union.

The union argued the posting was invalid because it occurred after certification, triggering the employer's obligation to negotiate.

The employer contended the plan was posted prior to certification.

The Tribunal found that the plan was not properly posted in a location accessible to all employees until after the union was certified.

Consequently, the employer violated the Pay Equity Act by unilaterally posting the plan and was ordered to negotiate a gender-neutral comparison system and pay equity plan with the union.

The Ottawa Board of Education brought applications to quash Review Officer orders directing it to bargain pay equity with the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation for three bargaining units.

The Union filed cross-applications alleging the Employer's pay equity plan violated the Pay Equity Act and was no longer appropriate.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider the Union's cross-applications because the issues were not adequately canvassed at Review Services.

The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to consider substantive matters related to the Review Officer's orders, including whether changed circumstances triggered an obligation to bargain, but declined jurisdiction to review the merits of the Union's proposed comparison system as it had not been discussed at Review Services.

The applicant unions alleged that the Red Cross and various home care agencies and service providers violated the replacement worker provisions of the Labour Relations Act when clients were reassigned to other agencies during a lawful strike by Red Cross homemakers.

The Board found that the other agencies were not acting on behalf of the Red Cross and were not employers of the striking workers, dismissing the replacement worker complaints.

However, the Board found that the Red Cross violated sections 65, 67(c), and 71 of the Act by making intimidating statements to employees, threatening job loss if they exercised their right to strike.

The respondent hospital sought disclosure of documents and information relating to a human rights complaint alleging systemic discrimination.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission objected, arguing the request was premature and that the information was privileged.

The Board of Inquiry held that the Stinchcombe doctrine of disclosure applies to human rights proceedings given the serious nature of the allegations.

The Board found that while documents prepared for conciliation or litigation are privileged, statements gathered during the investigation stage are not.

The Board quashed the hospital's subpoena as premature but ordered the Commission to disclose complainant statements and relevant witness statements.

Hay Management Consultants Limited sought to be added as a party intervenor in pay equity proceedings between the Ontario Nurses' Association and St. Michael's Hospital.

Hay argued it had a commercial interest because the union alleged its job comparison system was gender-biased.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that Hay had no rights or obligations under the Pay Equity Act and no maintainable action against the union, and therefore was not entitled by law to be a party under section 5 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The applicant employee filed an application to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union argued that the petition was not voluntary due to the employer's conduct during a recent lock-out, the hiring of replacement workers, and the payment of a larger Christmas bonus to the applicant.

The Board found that the employer's actions did not taint the petition, as they were not directly related to its origination or circulation, and the petition was circulated eight months after the lock-out ended.

The Board concluded the petition was voluntary and directed a representation vote.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees applied for certification of a part-time bargaining unit at the Toronto General Hospital.

The central issue was whether students employed during the school vacation period should be included in the part-time unit or excluded.

The Hospital argued for their exclusion, citing potential conflicts of interest and the viability of a separate student unit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied its established policy of grouping part-time employees and summer students together to avoid undue fragmentation.

Finding no compelling evidence of irreconcilable conflict or that the students could form a viable separate unit, the Board ordered the inclusion of summer students in the part-time bargaining unit and issued a certificate.