David Bloom

The Member, a Superintendent of Educational Services, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for failing to adequately supervise and engaging in conduct unbecoming a member.

During the administration of the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT), the Member was present at a meeting where teachers advised scribes not to seal completed test booklets, contrary to EQAO protocols.

The Member remained silent, which constituted tacit agreement and a failure to discharge his supervisory responsibilities.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a one-month suspension of his certificate, and publication of the decision.

The member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for inappropriately placing his hands on a student's shoulders while admonishing him.

The member pleaded guilty and admitted the facts in an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, the completion of a course in Non-violent Crisis Intervention, and publication of the decision.

The Member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for acting in an unprofessional and inappropriate manner towards a female colleague, including sending inappropriate letters, emails, and gifts, and making inappropriate comments.

The Discipline Committee accepted the agreed statement of facts and joint submission on penalty, noting the Member was suffering from clinical depression at the time.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension to be postponed and not imposed if the Member successfully completes a professional boundaries course, and publication of the decision without identifying information.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw the allegations of professional misconduct and incompetence set out in the Notice of Hearing against the member.

On consent of the parties, the Discipline Committee authorized the College to withdraw the allegations.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct involving inappropriate behaviour toward a 13-year-old female student, including writing inappropriate notes, driving her to his home, and meeting her outside of school.

The member pleaded guilty to the allegations and admitted to failing to maintain the standards of the profession and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a six-month suspension of the member's certificate, which was waived on the condition that he complete a course on maintaining appropriate boundaries and undergo two teacher performance appraisals.

The member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for employing negative reinforcement as a classroom management technique and inappropriately singling out students, causing them embarrassment and discomfort.

The Discipline Committee accepted the guilty plea and the joint submission on penalty.

The member was reprimanded and terms and conditions were placed on her certificate, requiring her to complete a course in classroom management and undergo teacher performance appraisals.

The Committee also ordered the publication of the member's name in the College's official publication, rejecting the member's request for a publication ban, to protect the public interest and maintain transparency.

The applicant union brought a jurisdictional dispute against the responding party employer.

The parties reached Minutes of Settlement dated May 31, 2000.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the matter in accordance with the settlement.

The appellant employer was found by a three-member panel of the Ontario Labour Relations Board to have failed to bargain in good faith by not disclosing an impending plant closure.

Before the decision was finalized, the panel discussed the policy implications of the case at a full board meeting.

The appellant challenged the decision, arguing the full board meeting violated the rules of natural justice, specifically the principles of 'he who decides must hear' and 'audi alteram partem'.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that institutional consultation processes like full board meetings do not violate natural justice provided they are limited to policy discussions, facts are taken as given, no votes are taken, and parties are given an opportunity to respond if new grounds are raised.

The applicant union and respondent university sought the Board's approval for an alternative dispute resolution procedure to resolve approximately 650 challenges to the inclusion of certain persons in the proposed bargaining unit under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The procedure involved the appointment of a Vice-Chair to assist the parties and make rulings that would constitute settlements.

The Board approved the procedure, finding it fell within its authority under section 103(2)(h) of the Act to authorize a Vice-Chair to inquire into a matter and report back to the panel.

The complainant school board alleged that a mass resignation by summer school principals, vice-principals, and curriculum resource teachers constituted an unlawful strike under the Labour Relations Act, and that the teachers' union encouraged it.

The union had issued a 'pink letter' advising members not to accept summer positions due to a collective bargaining impasse.

The Board found that the resignees were employees who had already commenced preparatory duties, and their coordinated resignations to exert bargaining pressure amounted to an unlawful strike.

The Board issued a cease and desist direction against the union and its District 16 president for counselling and supporting the unlawful strike.

The complainants, several local unions and their business representatives, alleged that the respondent International union committed an unfair labour practice by placing the Ontario District Council under trusteeship.

The complainants argued the trusteeship was a reprisal for their filing of a previous section 89 complaint (the 'EPSCA complaint') against the International.

The Board found that while there were legitimate concerns about the Council's financial practices, the International's decision to impose the trusteeship was motivated at least in part by a desire to penalize the complainants and impede their prosecution of the EPSCA complaint.

The Board held this violated section 80(2) of the Labour Relations Act and ordered the International to cease exercising control in a manner that would interfere with the EPSCA complaint.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers should be removed from certain designated employee bargaining agencies in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector.

The local unions argued that the International Association had not historically participated in bargaining and had expressly disclaimed liability under the provincial agreements.

The Board held that the International Association should remain part of the designations, as its involvement could provide a beneficial overview and maturity to the provincial bargaining process, fulfilling the intent of the legislation.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and filed membership evidence for over 55% of the bargaining unit.

A group of employees filed a statement of desire (petition) opposing the union, which included signatures from employees who had previously signed union cards.

The union argued the petition was not voluntary because the employer had announced new written policies and benefits shortly after receiving notice of the certification application, allegedly violating the statutory freeze.

The majority of the Board found that the employer's actions were part of an ongoing process and did not unduly influence the employees, concluding the petition was voluntary and directing a representation vote.

A dissenting Board member found the employer's actions violated the statutory freeze and unlawfully interfered with the employees' choice.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss an unfair labour practice complaint without a hearing, to defer the matter to internal union procedures, and to require further particulars.

The complaint alleged that the respondents placed the local unions under trusteeship to penalize them for filing a previous complaint.

The Board dismissed the motion to dismiss without a hearing, finding that the complex factual and legal issues required a full hearing.

The Board also declined to defer to the union's internal procedures, noting that the complaint raised fundamental rights under the Labour Relations Act that transcend internal union matters.

Finally, the Board found the particulars provided by the complainants to be sufficient and directed the matter to be listed for a hearing on the merits.