Douglas John Wray

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated an employee who had been discharged for misconduct.

The employee was subject to a Last Chance Agreement requiring immediate discharge for any further misconduct.

The arbitrator found the employee committed misconduct but ruled the discharge void because the employer took several days to investigate and obtain legal advice before formally terminating him.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's interpretation of 'immediately discharged' was patently unreasonable, as it failed to allow the employer a reasonable time to investigate and resulted in an absurd outcome without any prejudice to the employee.

The application was granted, the award quashed, and the grievance denied.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees filed a pay equity complaint alleging that the employer discriminated against flight attendants, a predominantly female group, by paying them less than mechanics and pilots, who are predominantly male.

The employer argued that the groups belonged to different establishments because they were in separate bargaining units with different collective agreements.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the three groups belong to the same establishment because they are subject to a common personnel and wage policy, regardless of differences in their collective agreements.

The appeal was dismissed and the matter remitted to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to continue its investigation.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award which held that the collective agreement violated the Human Rights Code by providing different drug and hospital benefit coverage durations for employees receiving Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA) benefits compared to those receiving long-term disability (LTD) benefits.

The Divisional Court granted the application and quashed the award, finding that the arbitrator erred by failing to compare the two benefit schemes holistically.

When viewed in their entirety, the WSIA scheme provided significant advantages over the LTD plan, and the differential treatment did not constitute discrimination.

A recreation instructor was convicted of sexually assaulting a boy under his supervision and was subsequently dismissed by the City of Toronto.

The union grieved the dismissal, and the arbitrator allowed the relitigation of the sexual assault allegations, ultimately finding the employee was dismissed without just cause.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the arbitrator's decision to allow relitigation of the criminal conviction was an abuse of process.

The Court ruled that the criminal conviction must stand with all its legal effects, and the arbitrator's failure to give it full effect rendered the decision patently unreasonable.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its applications for certification, termination of the respondent union's bargaining rights under s. 66 of the Labour Relations Act, and allegations of unfair labour practices under s. 53.

The Board had found that the preconditions for s. 66 were not met because the respondent union was already certified and the agreement merely expanded pre-existing bargaining rights to a new facility.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's interpretation of the Act and its factual findings regarding majority support and lack of employer support were within its specialized expertise.

Finding the Board's decision was not patently unreasonable, the Court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant Ironworkers filed two jurisdictional dispute complaints regarding work assigned by the employer to the Millwrights.

The first complaint involved repair and maintenance of slat conveyors at a Toyota plant, which the Board upheld as correctly assigned to the Millwrights based on area practice and the International Agreement.

The second complaint involved the installation of an overhead mono-rail conveyor at a Budd plant.

The Board found the employer incorrectly assigned all phase 2 work to the Millwrights, holding that the work should have been assigned in accordance with the conveyor agreement, which would have allocated a portion of the work to the Ironworkers.

The applicant requested an adjournment sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The Board granted the request, noting that the matter would be deemed terminated without further notice if neither party requested to proceed within that time.

The panel remained seized of the matter and offered continued mediation assistance.

The employee was convicted of sexually assaulting a young boy in the course of his employment as a recreation instructor.

The employer subsequently dismissed him.

The union grieved the dismissal.

At the arbitration, the arbitrator allowed the union to relitigate the employee's culpability, ultimately finding the employee innocent and ordering his reinstatement.

The Divisional Court quashed the arbitrator's decision.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's ruling, holding that the arbitrator erred in law.

The Court found that permitting the relitigation of a final criminal conviction in a grievance arbitration, where the facts and issues are identical, violates the finality principle and constitutes an abuse of process.

The appellant appealed an order of the Divisional Court.

The appeal was heard together with a companion appeal involving the City of Toronto and the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

For the reasons provided in the companion appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed this appeal with costs.

The applicant unions brought an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking a sale of business and/or related employer declaration against the responding companies.

The Board dismissed the related employer application, finding that the preconditions of common control or direction were not met between the original company and the subsequent entities.

However, the Board found that a sale of a business occurred from the original company to the second company, as the second company acquired work intended for the original company and used its equipment.

The applications against the third company were dismissed as it operated in a distinct area of the construction industry and no transfer of business was established.

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.

Local 46 applied for certification of the employees of Elitrex Plumbing Ltd. Elitrex and Local 183 argued that a voluntary recognition agreement executed between them barred the application.

The Board found that Local 183 failed to establish it had majority support of the employees in the bargaining unit at the time the agreement was signed, as critical membership evidence was undated and unsupported by oral testimony.

Furthermore, the employer had interfered by expressing a preference for Local 183 to an employee.

The Board declared the voluntary recognition agreement invalid, terminating Local 183's bargaining rights and allowing Local 46's certification application to proceed.

Following the amalgamation of seven municipalities into the new City of Toronto, the Ontario Labour Relations Board was asked to determine the appropriate bargaining unit structures under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The Board eliminated a small craft unit of operating engineers at a landfill site, integrating them into the broader outside workers unit.

The Board rejected proposals to create a separate health department bargaining unit and a separate nurses' unit within the health department, finding that these employees were appropriately situated within the larger municipal inside workers unit.

However, the Board preserved the separate stand-alone bargaining unit for employees of the Toronto Parking Authority, noting its status as a distinct local board and successor employer under the legislation.

The applicant union sought interim relief to revoke a new scheduling system implemented by the responding employer, which reduced the hours of part-time Registered Practical Nurses.

The union alleged the changes targeted its key supporters and violated the statutory freeze during first collective agreement negotiations.

The majority of the Board granted the interim relief, finding an arguable case of an unfair labour practice and that the balance of labour relations harm favoured the union, as the changes altered the point of departure for collective bargaining and could cause significant representation harm.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the application due to the union's delay in seeking relief.

The union applied for certification and filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the employer discharged a union supporter and engaged in a pervasive campaign of interference during an organizing drive.

The Board found that the discharge was motivated by a bona fide belief of theft, not anti-union animus, and that the employer's frequent written communications fell within the bounds of free speech.

However, the Board held that the employer breached the Act by prohibiting union solicitation on company property during an employee's vacation, promising to clear discipline records, removing last names from schedules, and granting an unprecedented Christmas bonus as an inducement.

The Board concluded these violations were not so serious as to prevent the ascertainment of employees' true wishes under section 8.

The applicant local union sought interim relief in connection with an unfair labour practice complaint, requesting an order directing the respondent employer to remit union dues to the local's officers rather than the trustee appointed by the parent union.

The local had purportedly disaffiliated from the parent union, which responded by placing the local under trusteeship.

The employer, caught in the middle, placed the dues in trust.

The Board dismissed the application for interim relief, finding that the local had not made out an arguable case that the trusteeship or the employer's neutral stance constituted an unfair labour practice, and that the Board should not use its interim powers to confirm a dubious disaffiliation process.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to process his harassment grievance to arbitration.

At the hearing, after the applicant testified, the Board entertained a non-suit motion without requiring the union to elect whether to call evidence.

The Board found that the applicant had failed to provide the union or the employer with any details of his harassment allegations despite repeated requests and opportunities to do so.

The Board concluded the union's decision not to proceed to arbitration was reasonable and dismissed the complaint.

The applicants brought jurisdictional dispute applications regarding the assignment of work for the fabrication and installation of a monorail at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1000 raised a preliminary constitutional challenge, arguing that labour relations at the nuclear facility fall under federal jurisdiction.

The Board applied the functional test and determined that while the production of nuclear energy and its attendant safety concerns are within federal jurisdiction, the fabrication and installation of the monorail is not integral to the federal undertaking.

Having found it had jurisdiction, the Board directed Ontario Hydro to assign the work to the applicants based on collective agreements and historical practice.

The applicant union sought an interim order declaring it the successor union and exclusive bargaining agent for employees in over 200 pending successor rights applications.

The applications arose from a massive inter-union dispute following the purported merger of various Ontario locals of the RWDSU with the Steelworkers, which was contested by the RWDSU International and the UFCW.

The dispute caused widespread confusion and collective bargaining paralysis, prompting employers and the Minister of Labour to seek clarification on which union to deal with.

The Board granted the interim order, declaring the Steelworkers as the interim exclusive bargaining agent to preserve orderly labour relations and allow the collective bargaining process to function until the main applications are resolved.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit composed solely of Registered and Graduate Nursing Assistants (RNAs) at the responding hospital.

The hospital opposed the application, arguing that an RNA-only unit would lead to undue fragmentation and that a broader service or paramedical unit was appropriate.

The Board reviewed the specific facts, including the lack of interchange between RNAs and other classifications, the historical anomaly of the RNA role, and the employees' right to self-organization.

The majority of the Board concluded that the RNA-only unit was appropriate and granted the certification application.

One Board member dissented, citing concerns over fragmentation in the health care sector.