Daniel Leone

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of sex and disability.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the issues were appropriately dealt with in a prior grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations from 2012 to 2015, as the parties agreed they were addressed by the arbitrator.

For the remaining allegations from 1996 to 2011, which were filed outside the one-year limitation period, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the delay was incurred in good faith under s. 34(2) of the Code.

The applicant alleged that the respondent breached a settlement agreement by making child support deductions from the settlement monies and remitting them to the Family Responsibility Office.

The Tribunal found that the settlement monies were characterized as general damages, not income or severance, and therefore the respondent was not required to make deductions under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the $2,500 that was erroneously deducted, plus interest.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a grievance proceeding.

The respondent opposed reactivation on the basis that the arbitrator had already dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate, noting that it cannot exercise its power to dismiss an application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code unless the application is active.

A preliminary hearing was ordered to determine whether the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability.

The respondent and the union requested that the application be deferred because a grievance based on the same facts was proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to defer the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, sexual harassment, and reprisal.

The respondents requested to defer the application pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance arbitration that dealt with the failure to accommodate the applicant's disability.

The applicant consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal granted the request to defer the application to avoid inconsistent decisions, noting the significant overlap between the facts and issues in the application and the grievance.

The Board held a hearing to determine whether 40 per cent or more of the employees in the bargaining unit were not represented by a bargaining agent immediately before the changeover date, pursuant to section 23(5) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

As the necessary information was not available, the Board directed the employer to produce payroll records and scheduled a further hearing and representation vote.

The applicant applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding trade unions.

The affiliated bargaining agent argued the application was untimely because the applicant served the application on it rather than directly on the employee bargaining agency.

The Board held that in the ICI sector of the construction industry, employees are represented by both the employee bargaining agency and the affiliated bargaining agent.

Therefore, delivery of the application to the affiliated bargaining agent within the prescribed time satisfied the requirements of section 63(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Following a representation vote in which a majority opposed the union, the Board declared that the responding parties no longer represent the employees.

The applicant employer sought declarations and directions regarding alleged unlawful strike activity and picketing by the responding union and its members.

Employees at one plant were engaged in a lawful strike and picketed other plants of the employer.

Employees at the other plants refused to cross the picket lines.

The Board found that the refusal to cross the picket lines constituted an unlawful strike, which was authorized and encouraged by the union and its officials.

The Board issued cease and desist orders, while reserving its decision on the lawfulness of the picketing itself.

Following the amalgamation of Moore Township and Sombra Township into St. Clair Township, OPSEU applied for certification to represent employees of Moore Township.

St. Clair Township subsequently filed an application under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act (PSLRTA).

The issue was whether OPSEU could participate in the PSLRTA process given that its certification application was filed just prior to the amalgamation changeover date.

The Board held that OPSEU had demonstrated a sufficient interest in the proceedings by virtue of its certification application and successful representation vote, and exercised its discretion to grant OPSEU intervenor status in the PSLRTA application.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding party employer discharged an employee without just cause.

The employer claimed the employee was terminated for drinking on the job.

The Board issued a bottom-line decision, finding that the employer failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the employee consumed alcohol on the job site.

The grievance was upheld, and the employer was directed to reinstate the employee forthwith, with reasons to follow.