188 total
Preliminary objections to workload and job posting grievances largely dismissed, allowing claims to proceed.
The union filed grievances on behalf of six employees whose jobs became surplus following the reorganization of social assistance programs.
The employer raised four preliminary objections: that the grievances were barred by a prior memorandum of agreement, that the health and safety claims were barred by a prior union grievance settlement, that the Board lacked jurisdiction to review management's workload decisions absent improper motive, and that the grievors lacked standing to challenge other employees' workloads.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that the memorandum of agreement barred claims under article 20 but not article 6, and dismissed the remaining three preliminary objections, allowing the grievances to proceed.
Board authorized release of health care information to assist parties in developing member profiles.
The applicant union referred a matter to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act and the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
Following an initial hearing, the parties agreed to attempt to develop member profiles.
The Board issued an interim order authorizing the responding party to release health care information if an agreement on member profiles is reached, and adjourned the matter to a later date.
Appendix 13 relocation rights apply when a jail's work is transferred to facilities beyond 40 kilometres.
The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement's redeployment provisions when it closed three jails and transferred the inmates and work to other facilities.
The central issue was whether the closure and transfer constituted a change in an 'operation's headquarters' under Appendix 13, which would trigger specific relocation and surplus rights for affected employees.
The employer argued that 'operation' meant a functioning, cohesive unit, not just the work itself.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that 'operation' refers to the productive activity or work.
Since the work of the closed jails was moved to locations beyond 40 kilometres, Appendix 13 applied, granting affected employees the choice to move with the work or be declared surplus.
Consent award issued incorporating settlement terms for the review and transfer of employee personnel files.
The parties agreed to minutes of settlement resolving a dispute over the review and transfer of employee personnel files.
The settlement established a process for employees to review their files with human resources staff and request the removal of documentation relating to union and discretionary leaves prior to the file being transferred to a new employer.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent award incorporating the terms of the settlement.
Board dismissed employer's application to add two supervisors to a settled bargaining unit under s. 33(3).
The applicant employer sought to have two part-time nursing supervisor positions included in the new nursing bargaining unit represented by the respondent union, with full recognition for their service and seniority under s. 33(3) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.
The respondent union argued that the bargaining unit configuration had already been settled by a prior Board decision and Minutes of Settlement, and these employees were not included.
The Board agreed with the union, finding that s. 33(3) applies to an 'employee in the bargaining unit,' and it was not appropriate to decide status disputes under this section after the bargaining unit configuration had been decided.
The application was dismissed.
Board adjourns Minister's referral to allow parties to focus on bargaining their first collective agreement.
The Minister of Labour referred questions to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether the employer is a 'hospital' under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act and whether the Minister can rescind a 'no board' notice.
The Board adjourned the proceedings to allow the parties to focus on bargaining their first collective agreement, noting that litigation would negatively impact negotiations.
The matter was rescheduled, and the parties were directed to meet and bargain in good faith.
Board dismisses sale of business application, finding CCAC's contracting out of nursing services was a subcontracting arrangement.
The union brought an application alleging a sale of a business and an unfair labour practice complaint against the responding party, a nursing services provider.
The community care access centre (CCAC) had contracted out 98% of its nursing services to the responding party.
The union argued this constituted a transfer of a part of the CCAC's business.
The Board found that the arrangement was a subcontracting of work, not a transfer of a business, as the responding party was a pre-existing business with its own infrastructure, management, and personnel, and no assets or economic organization were transferred from the CCAC.
The applications were dismissed.
Certification application dismissed; agreement expanding existing bargaining unit to include paramedics constituted valid voluntary recognition.
The applicant union (OPSEU) applied for certification to represent paramedics employed by the Regional Municipality of York.
The Region and the intervenor union (CUPE) argued the application was untimely because the paramedics were already covered by an existing collective agreement or a valid voluntary recognition agreement between them.
The Board found that the agreement to expand the existing CUPE bargaining unit to include the newly hired paramedics constituted a valid voluntary recognition agreement.
Declining to follow earlier Board jurisprudence, the Board held that the union only needed majority support in the overall expanded bargaining unit, not the specific add-on group.
As CUPE had majority support in the overall unit, the agreement was valid and barred OPSEU's application.
Proposed bargaining unit excluding outreach workers found inappropriate due to undue fragmentation.
The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit consisting of attendant care workers, but excluding those in the outreach program.
The responding employer objected, arguing that the exclusion of outreach workers made the unit inappropriate.
The Board agreed with the employer, finding that the proposed unit would lead to undue fragmentation in a relatively small workplace.
The Board noted that the terms and conditions of employment, management structure, and work performed were essentially the same for both included and excluded workers.
The Board directed that the segregated ballots of the outreach workers be counted.
Applications by former Crown employees to enforce seniority rights under O. Reg. 10/99 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
OPSEU and individual former Crown employees filed applications alleging that the responding municipalities violated O. Reg. 10/99 by failing to properly credit their seniority after they were transferred to municipal employment.
The intervenor union (CUPE) and the responding municipalities raised preliminary objections regarding the Board's jurisdiction and the applicants' standing.
The Board held that it lacked inherent jurisdiction to enforce the regulation directly, as the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act does not provide a mechanism for individual employees or their former bargaining agent to apply to the Board for such redress.
The applications were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Consent award issued incorporating settlement terms for transferring employee files during psychiatric hospital governance transfer.
The parties agreed to a consent award resolving policy grievances related to the transfer of governance of psychiatric hospitals.
The settlement sets out the process for transferring personnel, WSIB, and employee health files, including employees' rights to review and request removal of documents from their files prior to transfer.
The Vice-Chair remained seized of any disputes regarding the completeness of the transfer agreements.
Termination application dismissed as untimely because a lawful strike was still ongoing.
The applicant employees filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.
The responding party union objected on the basis that the application was untimely under section 67(3)(a) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, because a lawful strike was ongoing.
Although a memorandum of agreement had been signed and most employees had returned to work, 20 employees remained off work pursuant to the strike on the application date.
The Board found that a strike was still in effect and that the statute does not require a complete cessation of work or disruption for a strike to continue.
The Board dismissed the application as untimely.
Application for termination of bargaining rights dismissed as untimely under s. 67(3) of the LRA.
The responding union objected on the basis that the application was untimely under section 67(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
A vote was held and the ballot box was sealed.
Following a hearing, the Board orally dismissed the application as untimely and directed that the ballots be destroyed without being counted.
Written reasons were to follow.
Board retains jurisdiction to hear evidence of continued reprisals during implementation of its human rights orders.
The Board of Inquiry reconvened to address outstanding issues regarding the implementation of its previous orders concerning workplace harassment and discrimination.
The complainant alleged further acts of reprisal and a continued poisoned environment.
The Board ruled that compensation must include a gross-up for income tax purposes to satisfy the principle of restitutio in integrum.
Furthermore, the Board determined it retained jurisdiction to hear evidence of continued discrimination and reprisals related to the implementation of its orders, distinguishing its remedial role from disciplinary proceedings.
Board maintains separate service and clerical bargaining units following hospital restructuring to minimize labour relations disruption.
Following a hospital restructuring, the successor employer and one union sought a single comprehensive bargaining unit for all service and office/clerical employees.
Two other unions argued for maintaining separate bargaining units for service employees and office/clerical employees.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that two separate bargaining units were appropriate.
The Board held that while a single unit might be appropriate, the existing separate units had been effective and there was no evidence of labour relations difficulties.
Maintaining the separate units would cause the least disruption to the existing pattern of collective bargaining and was consistent with the purposes of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act.
Board determines configuration of seven bargaining units following hospital amalgamation.
The applicant hospital, a successor hospital following an amalgamation, applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 for a determination of the number and descriptions of bargaining units.
The Board determined that there should be seven bargaining units spanning all three hospital sites.
The Board maintained separate units for stationary engineers, McLean House employees, office and clerical employees, and service employees, but combined part-time and full-time employees into single units for each category.
Board determines bargaining unit structure for the amalgamated City of Kingston, preserving separate utilities and nurses units.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a bottom-line decision regarding the restructuring of bargaining units at the newly amalgamated City of Kingston under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.
The Board directed the preservation of the ONA nurses' unit and a separate utilities unit represented by the IBEW.
Transit workers represented by the CAW were folded into a broader all-employee unit proposed by CUPE.
The Board also defined the firefighters' unit and directed the parties to finalize the remaining bargaining unit descriptions with the assistance of a Board Officer.
Board finds intermingling following hospital merger, restructures bargaining units, and orders representation votes.
Following the merger of two hospitals, the applicant hospital applied under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking a declaration that intermingling of employees had occurred and requesting the restructuring of multiple bargaining units into two units, along with representation votes.
The responding trade unions opposed the application, arguing that the transfer of employees did not constitute intermingling and that the hospital's actions were not bona fide.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that intermingling had occurred due to the integration of the hospitals and the regular movement of staff between sites, which caused significant operational and labour relations difficulties.
The Board exercised its discretion to combine the existing bargaining units into a paramedical unit and a service/clerical unit, and ordered representation votes to determine the bargaining agents for the newly structured units.
Work assignment dispute dismissed; hospital permitted to transfer testing work to nurses for operational efficiency.
The applicant union (OPSEU) filed a work assignment dispute under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, challenging the Hospital's decision to reassign respiratory and cardiac testing work from Cardio-Pulmonary Technicians to Registered Nurses and SEIU members.
The Hospital argued the transfer to a 'point of care' model would improve efficiency and patient care.
The Board dismissed the application, finding that the Hospital's decision was made for bona fide operational reasons and that the OPSEU collective agreement did not expressly prohibit the transfer of work out of the bargaining unit.
Application to merge bargaining units following hospital amalgamation dismissed due to lack of employee intermingling.
The Perth and Smiths Falls District Hospital applied under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act to merge certain bargaining units following the amalgamation of the Smiths Falls Community Hospital and the Great War Memorial Hospital.
The Hospital argued that the merger resulted in an intermingling of employees, justifying the consolidation of bargaining units represented by CUPE, OPSEU, and ICTU.
The Board dismissed the application, finding that while services and management had been integrated, there was no significant intermingling of employees or transfer of job opportunities between the two locations that would call into question the logic of the existing bargaining structures.
