Damian Rigolo

The parties agreed upon a timetable leading up to a certification motion in a class proceeding.

The court endorsed the agreed-upon schedule, setting dates for the exchange of motion records, cross-examinations, and factums, with the motion returnable for three days in May and June 2022.

The complainant and respondents both wrote to the Tribunal requesting that the merits of the case not be dealt with.

A hearing was convened to address these requests.

The complainant did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the complaint and declined the respondents' request for costs.

The applicant filed an application under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging she was suspended and constructively dismissed as a reprisal for notifying the Ministry of Labour about safety concerns.

At the commencement of the hearing, the responding party moved to dismiss the application on the ground of undue delay, noting an eleven-month gap between the suspension and the filing of the application.

The applicant claimed she was unaware of her rights and was pursuing other claims.

The Board found the applicant failed to provide acceptable reasons for the delay and that the delay would prejudice the employer.

The application was dismissed for undue delay.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the responding party union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant complained about events from 1997 and 1998, including the combination of her job with another position, lack of forklift training, and her subsequent retirement.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for undue delay and failure to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the application on the ground of undue delay, finding the 19-month delay to be prejudicial and inadequately explained.

The Board also noted that, even if not dismissed for delay, the application would be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case, as the applicant never requested the union to file a grievance or take specific action.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

On the scheduled hearing date, the parties resolved the grievance by entering into minutes of settlement.

The responding party acknowledged the union's bargaining rights and admitted to violating the provincial collective agreement, while the union agreed not to claim damages.

The Board issued a decision incorporating the minutes of settlement and resolving the matter.

The employer applied for a first contract direction under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union raised preliminary objections, arguing the applications were premature and should be dismissed.

The Board found the applications were premature but cured the irregularity under section 123 of the Act.

The Board further determined that the applications were properly governed by the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act (PSLRTA), which required the matter to be heard by a single vice-chair.

Ultimately, the parties concluded collective bargaining and ratified a Memorandum of Agreement, prompting the employer to seek leave to withdraw the applications.

The Board granted leave to withdraw.

The Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen applied under section 154 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to be certified as the exclusive employee bargaining agency for the provincial unit, seeking to oust the International Union from the designated agency.

The Board found that the applicant met the statutory definition of an 'employee bargaining agency' and had standing to apply.

The Board further found that a majority of the affiliated bargaining agents supported the application, and conditionally concluded that they held bargaining rights for a majority of employees, subject to any final representations from the opposing parties.