Donald Kenneth Eady

Following the dismissal of the applicants' judicial review application on the grounds of delay, the respondents sought costs.

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity scale, reducing the claimed amounts due to excessive hours, duplication of effort by multiple lawyers, and unexplained disbursements.

Costs were fixed at $18,000 plus disbursements for the respondent union and $14,000 plus disbursements for the respondent locals.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding the Grievance Settlement Board's jurisdiction to make determinations about Orders-in-Council, classifications, and management/excluded employees in a policy grievance concerning the interpretation of a recognition clause.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objections as premature, finding that defining the scope of remedial authority at this stage would not narrow the evidence or shorten the proceedings.

The employer was invited to renew its jurisdictional arguments if and when the union seeks relief that may be beyond the Board's jurisdiction.

In a complex policy grievance involving the history of collective bargaining and legislative history, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a detailed production order.

The parties were ordered to use their best efforts to locate and produce extensive documentation relating to the creation of bargaining units, classifications, and various agreements by a specified date.

The Board also ordered that no party would be permitted to rely on documents not produced by the deadline without consent or a convincing reason.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision but delayed perfecting the application for 13 months.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for delay.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, noting the applicants offered no explanation for the delay, evaded explicit OLRB orders, and caused ongoing prejudice and uncertainty in a time-sensitive labour relations dispute.

The Employer disciplined 66 employees, discharging six, for contravening the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention policy and the IT policy by sending and receiving sexually explicit and inappropriate e-mails.

The Union grieved the discharges, arguing they were an excessive response.

In a preliminary phase to determine if the discharges could possibly be upheld based on the Employer's best case, the arbitrator found that the grievors engaged in serious misconduct by distributing highly offensive material, which contributed to a poisoned work environment.

The arbitrator concluded that the discharges could potentially be upheld, denying reinstatement at this stage and directing the hearing to continue on the merits.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer failed to pay retroactive wage adjustments as soon as reasonably possible following the ratification of Memoranda of Settlement.

The Union sought interim relief ordering the Employer to pay the negotiated rates and all retroactivity owing by specific dates.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the application, finding that while the Union had an arguable case, the balance of convenience did not favour altering the status quo.

The Board concluded that the alleged breach could be adequately addressed with damages in the form of interest at the conclusion of the proceeding.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer failed to comply with Memoranda of Settlement requiring retroactive wage adjustments to be paid as soon as reasonably possible.

At the hearing, the Employer requested an adjournment.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the adjournment motion and scheduled further hearing dates to proceed with the matter.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The intervenor unions argued the application should be dismissed on grounds of estoppel, fraud, and abuse of process, alleging the applicant breached a prior settlement agreement by failing to negotiate a collective agreement with the employer.

The Board dismissed these arguments, holding that estoppel cannot prevent the operation of a public statute like the Labour Relations Act, and that the applicant's conduct did not amount to fraud or an abuse of process as there was no misrepresentation or violation of the Act.

The applicants alleged that the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers violated the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by imposing a receivership on the Ontario Provincial Conference.

The Board found that the parent union lacked just cause to impose the receivership, as it was attempting to use its constitutional power to force the local union to abandon its statutory rights and surrender in an ongoing dispute over local autonomy.

The receivership was declared null and void.

The applicant, a contract employee, was terminated by the employer due to a poor attendance record.

She filed a complaint alleging that her termination was an unlawful reprisal for raising health and safety concerns regarding dust and dust mites in the workplace, contrary to section 50(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board found that the termination was part of a province-wide review of contract staff and was based entirely on her absenteeism, with no anti-safety animus.

The Board also held that it lacked jurisdiction under section 50(7) of the OHSA to substitute a penalty, as that provision applies only to disciplinary discharges, whereas the applicant's termination for innocent absenteeism was non-disciplinary.

The application was dismissed.

The union appealed from a Divisional Court judgment quashing a labour board decision that judges' secretaries were not excluded from bargaining-unit membership by the conflict-of-interest provision in the governing statute.

The Court of Appeal held that the core issue was a labour relations question within the Board's specialized jurisdiction, not a freestanding constitutional question, although judicial independence formed part of the context.

Applying a patent unreasonableness standard to the Board's ultimate decision, the court found the Board's conclusion was not patently unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed, the Divisional Court order was set aside, and the judicial review application was dismissed, with no costs.

The applicant union sought to consolidate two files and claimed successorship rights.

The International Union sought intervenor status.

The Board consolidated the files and granted the International Union limited status to intervene solely on the issue of successorship, finding it had a legal interest in the transfer of jurisdiction but no interest in the interpretation of the collective agreement.

The applicant union filed a jurisdictional dispute under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, challenging the responding employer's assignment of removing and replacing loose concrete blocks over boilers at a nuclear power plant to the responding union (Boilermakers).

The applicant claimed the work should have been assigned to its members, while an intervenor union argued for a composite crew.

After reviewing the employer's past practice evidence, the Board declined to change the assignment and confirmed the work was properly assigned to the Boilermakers.

The applicant union applied for certification to displace the incumbent International Union.

The incumbent union and the General Presidents' Maintenance Committee for Canada (GPMC) intervened, arguing that a valid collective agreement already covered the employees.

The Board examined several documents and agreements to determine if a valid collective agreement existed between the responding party employer and the International Union.

The Board found that while the GPMC lacked actual authority to sign the adherence agreement on behalf of the International Union, it possessed ostensible authority to do so.

Furthermore, the Board determined that recent amendments to section 44 of the Labour Relations Act applied retroactively, meaning employee ratification was not required.

Consequently, a valid collective agreement existed, giving the intervenors status, and the Board directed the counting of the displacement ballots.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the hospital contravened the statutory freeze provisions of the Labour Relations Act and the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act by unilaterally altering the employee benefit package after the union was certified but before a first collective agreement was reached.

The hospital argued it was acting bona fide in response to budgetary pressures and carrying on 'business as usual'.

The Board reviewed its approach to statutory freeze cases, noting the limitations of the 'business as usual' and 'reasonable expectations' tests.

The Board held that the statutory freeze is intended to bolster the bargaining process and reinforce the union's status as exclusive bargaining agent.

Because the benefit changes affected employees as a collectivity and were the kind of thing the employer would normally be obliged to bargain about, the hospital was prohibited from implementing them unilaterally.

The Board found a breach of the statutory freeze provisions and referred the matter back to the parties to attempt a settlement on remedy.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board considered whether the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers (IU) had just cause to revoke the charters of the Ontario Provincial Conference (OPC) and several affiliated local unions.

The dispute arose after the OPC negotiated the removal of the IU dues check-off clause from the provincial ICI collective agreements and returned collected dues to its members, as part of a broader push for Canadian autonomy.

The Board found that while the IU had cause to be concerned and to investigate, it did not have just cause to revoke the charters without affording the OPC and the locals a full opportunity to explain and defend their actions.

The Board concluded that the IU acted unreasonably and without just cause under sections 147 and 149 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Association of Law Officers of the Crown (ALOC) applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of articling students employed by the provincial government.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU), which already represented the students, intervened and challenged ALOC's status as a trade union.

The majority of the Board dismissed the application, finding that under section 1(3)(a) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, lawyers are not considered employees.

Consequently, ALOC, being comprised of lawyers, was not an 'organization of employees' and therefore lacked trade union status.

The Vice-Chair dissented, arguing that Crown lawyers are employees under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993, and that ALOC retained its previously recognized trade union status.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent an all-employee bargaining unit at a newly formed Crown corporation.

The intervenor union argued that the proposed unit was inappropriate because it would dismantle pre-existing bargaining structures where the intervenor represented supervisory and professional employees.

The Board held that due to the statutory exclusion of successor rights in this privatization, there were no pre-existing bargaining structures binding the new employer.

Applying its standard test, the Board found that an all-employee bargaining unit was appropriate and that the employees shared a sufficient community of interest.

The Board determined the bargaining unit structure following the amalgamation of four psychiatric and addiction facilities into the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The Board ordered two bargaining units: one for registered and graduate nurses, and one for all other non-managerial employees.

The Board also held that a non-union option must be included on the ballot for any unit where 40% or more of the employees were Crown employees prior to the changeover date.

The geographic scope was limited to the City of Toronto and existing Mississauga employees.

The Board declined to order the disclosure of employee addresses and telephone numbers to the unions due to safety concerns.

The union applied to the Board for determinations regarding unresolved issues in negotiating an essential services agreement under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993.

The Board held it lacked jurisdiction to prohibit the employer from using replacement workers during a strike or lock-out, given the statutory amendments in section 41.1.

However, the Board ordered the parties to negotiate in good faith regarding the terms and conditions of employment for essential service workers.

The Board also directed the parties to negotiate protocols for situations where a designated essential service worker is absent or exercises the right to refuse unsafe work.