Frank A. Angeletti

The applicant sought to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a workplace grievance-arbitration process.

The respondents opposed reactivation, arguing that the grievance process was still active and awaiting arbitration dates.

The Tribunal found that the grievance-arbitration procedure was continuing and that the applicant's dissatisfaction with its pace was not a sufficient reason to reactivate the Tribunal process.

The request to reactivate the application was denied.

The respondents requested to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the grievance only dealt with disability accommodation and not the allegations of discrimination based on age, race, and place of origin.

The Tribunal found that the key issue of disability accommodation was central to both proceedings and that deferral was appropriate to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent decisions.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant, a radiation therapist, took a leave of absence due to breast cancer and subsequent physical and psychological complications.

She alleged that her employer, Hamilton Health Sciences, discriminated against her by denying her health benefits and failing to accommodate her disability by providing alternate work outside of the cancer care environment.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the applicant's conditions constituted a disability under the Code.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding that the employer had fulfilled both its procedural and substantive duties to accommodate up to the point of undue hardship by extensively searching for suitable alternate positions over several years, which were ultimately unsuccessful due to the applicant's specific restrictions and lack of transferable skills.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint.

Following a representation vote, the union withdrew its status challenges, which would have resulted in the dismissal of the certification application but for the unfair labour practice complaint.

The complaint hearing was deferred because the employer had not received notice.

The union requested that a new panel hear the complaint as soon as possible, while the employer argued the current panel was seized.

The Vice-Chair ruled he was not seized of the complaint as he had not commenced hearing it, and referred the matter to the Registrar to be scheduled for hearing before a new panel at the earliest opportunity.

The parties requested an adjournment of the proceedings to attempt to negotiate a collective agreement in light of changed circumstances.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, adjourning the scheduled dates in September and October, while maintaining the December dates.

The applicant union applied under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 to determine the appropriate number and description of bargaining units following a hospital restructuring.

The Board denied an adjournment request by the SEIU and denied standing to OPSEU.

The Board determined that there should be one service unit, inclusive of registered practical nurses and stationary engineers, extending to all three of the employer's sites.

The Board also determined that the technical unit should extend to all three sites rather than being limited to one.

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.

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.

In an application for related employer and sale of business declarations, the responding parties raised a preliminary issue regarding the burden of proof to establish the existence of a collective agreement.

The applicants argued that the responding parties bore the burden under sections 1(5) and 69(13) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board held that the applicants bear the initial burden of proving the existence of the voluntary recognition agreement that created the bargaining rights upon which they rely.

The Board also made procedural directions regarding document production and scheduled further hearing dates.

The Canadian Health Care Workers (CHCW) filed a certification application to displace the incumbent union, SEIU, for service employees at Parkwood Hospital and McCormick Home.

Shortly after, SEIU filed an application under the newly enacted Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act (Bill 136), arguing that an ongoing restructuring transferring Parkwood to St. Joseph's Health Centre barred the certification application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that Bill 136 did not automatically bar the certification application and declined to exercise its discretion to apply Bill 136 retroactively to halt the proceeding.

The Board directed that the representation ballots be counted, treating the employees at the two facilities as separate voting constituencies.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit consisting solely of Geographic Full-Time (GFT) secretaries employed by the responding hospital.

The hospital argued that the GFT secretaries did not constitute an appropriate bargaining unit and should be included in a larger unit of all clerical and administrative employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while GFT secretaries had some distinct characteristics, such as precarious job security tied to individual physicians and a history of separate association, creating a separate bargaining unit for them would cause undue fragmentation and serious labour relations problems.

The Board concluded that the proposed unit was not viable for collective bargaining and dismissed the application.

The grievor, a professional engineer, sought a retroactive salary increase for 1990 based on an interest arbitration award released in 1991.

Before the award was released, the grievor was promoted to the Senior Management Group (SMG), which is excluded from bringing working conditions grievances to the Public Service Grievance Board.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board denied the motion, finding that the grievor was complaining about a matter that occurred while he was in a classification entitled to grieve, and he did not lose this right merely because he was subsequently promoted.

The union applied for interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the employer changed the work schedules of fragrance associates as a reprisal for their participation in a grievance arbitration.

The union sought an order restoring the previous work schedule and an order requiring the employer to post a notice of employee rights.

The Board dismissed the request to restore the work schedule, finding that the harm to the employees was primarily financial and could be remedied if the main complaint succeeded, whereas an interim order would significantly intrude on the employer's management rights and the collective agreement.

However, the Board granted the request for a posting, directing the employer to post a notice advising employees of their rights under the Act to prevent potential labour relations harm without prejudicing the employer.

The applicants applied for a declaration terminating the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union argued the application was untimely because a collective agreement had been concluded, an issue that was the subject of a separate, ongoing unfair labour practice complaint.

The applicants and the intervener employer requested that the Board direct a representation vote and seal the ballot box pending the resolution of the timeliness issue.

The Board declined to order a vote, citing concerns about jurisdiction, employee expectations, and the potential labour relations impact of holding and later nullifying a vote.

The matter was adjourned pending the determination of the related complaint.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent general contractor violated the Provincial ICI Agreement by subcontracting electrical work to a non-union contractor.

The respondent argued it was not bound by the 1962 working agreement, asserting it was signed without authority, under duress, or was an invalid pre-hire agreement since the respondent never directly hired electricians.

The respondent alternatively argued the union had abandoned any bargaining rights.

The Board held the 1962 working agreement was validly executed, constituted a series of voluntary recognition agreements, and was not abandoned.

The grievance was upheld.

The applicant sought to introduce a report and supplementary report prepared for the Ministry of Labour in 1980 by George W. Adams to show the mischief that existed prior to certain amendments to the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent objected to their admissibility.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that the reports were admissible for the purpose sought by the applicant.

The Board directed the parties to file written submissions on the probative value of the material.