Georgina Watts

Sobeys Capital Inc. applied for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying Local 633 as a craft bargaining unit for 15 meat department workers at a Toronto supermarket.

Sobeys argued the decision was unreasonable, contrary to precedent, and created an absurd result by leaving the remaining 92 percent of employees non-unionized.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OLRB's decisions under both s. 9(3) and s. 9(1) of the Labour Relations Act were reasonable, given the union's long history of representing supermarket meat department employees and the lack of evidence that certification would cause labour relations problems.

The Union filed group grievances challenging the Employer's new requirement that Employment Standards Officers work in-person a minimum of three days per week, limiting remote work to two days.

The Union argued this was an unreasonable workplace rule under the KVP standard, while the Employer maintained it was an unfettered exercise of management rights.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that even if the KVP reasonableness standard applied, the three-day in-person requirement was reasonable as it was rationally connected to the Employer's legitimate business objectives of ensuring consistency across regions and fostering team culture, belonging, and mentorship.

Prior to the hearing of a discharge grievance, the union requested the production of an investigation report and related materials.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to produce the investigation report, appendices, and all non-privileged materials to the union, subject to strict confidentiality conditions regarding electronic distribution, copying, and sharing with the grievor.

The employer brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement regarding three grievances.

During mediation, the union made an offer to resolve the grievances and explicitly left it open.

The employer later accepted the offer and provided draft minutes of settlement.

The union advised that the grievor no longer agreed to the settlement.

The arbitrator found that the union's offer was left open and the employer's acceptance crystallized the agreement, creating a binding settlement from which the union could not withdraw.

The motion was granted and the agreed terms were ordered.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that set the terms of a renewal collective agreement for employees of a long-term care home.

The union argued that the wage adjustments awarded were unreasonable and that the arbitration board failed to provide adequate reasons, placed too much reliance on a master agreement, and failed to properly apply the statutory criteria under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board's decision was reasonable, adequately explained, and fell within the range of acceptable outcomes given the legislative nature of interest arbitration and the deference owed to such awards.

The grievor was terminated from her position as a bookkeeper at a courthouse after an audit revealed she had written cheques to herself and her daughter from court funds.

She was subsequently convicted of fraud and sentenced to jail.

The union grieved the termination.

The grievor failed to attend the first two scheduled arbitration hearing dates, despite the union's efforts to contact her.

The employer requested that the grievance be dismissed.

The arbitrator declined to dismiss the grievance immediately, instead granting an adjournment to give the grievor one final opportunity to attend the next scheduled hearing date, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.

The union filed a grievance seeking a firm commitment from the employer to negotiate a new compressed work week arrangement.

At the hearing, the union attempted to argue that the employer's failure to schedule employees according to regular hours resulted in unpaid overtime.

The arbitrator held that the issue of overtime was an impermissible expansion of the scope of the grievance, as it was not mentioned in the original grievance document.

Furthermore, the arbitrator ruled that the Grievance Settlement Board lacks jurisdiction to direct the employer to negotiate a compressed work week arrangement, as this falls within management rights.

The portion of the grievance relating to the compressed work week was dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award concerning a grievance for an employer's failure to investigate a workplace sexual assault of a 17-year-old employee.

The arbitrator upheld the grievance but awarded only $1,000 in nominal damages, finding the employee suffered no mental or emotional damages and blaming the lack of a formal complaint.

The Divisional Court found the award unreasonable, holding that the arbitrator failed to address the employer's statutory breaches under the Human Rights Code and the Occupational Health and Safety Act, relied on irrelevant considerations, and used stereotypical reasoning regarding the victim's reaction.

The court quashed the decision and directed a new hearing before a different arbitrator.

The union grieved that 'survey stops' performed by transport enforcement officers violated the Highway Traffic Act and section 9 of the Charter.

In a prior decision, the Grievance Settlement Board held it would only have jurisdiction if the employer's directions clearly and unambiguously required functions resulting in such violations.

At the hearing, the union was unable to provide evidence or prior decisions establishing that survey stops constitute a clear violation.

Consequently, the employer's motion to dismiss the 'survey stops' portion of the grievance for lack of jurisdiction was granted.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a portion of a grievance alleging that 'survey stops' assigned to Transport Enforcement Officers violated the Highway Traffic Act and the Charter, arguing the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction.

The union argued that employees cannot be required to perform unlawful work assignments and that the Board has jurisdiction to determine the legality of the assignment.

The Arbitrator found that the Board has jurisdiction to adjudicate the allegation provided the state of the law is such that it is clear and unambiguous that the employer's directions would require the officers to perform functions that would result in a violation of the HTA or the Charter.

Following a hearing, the Arbitrator issued a procedural direction allowing the parties to provide submissions on two specific cases: Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) v. C.U.P.E. and Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Rouatt) v. Ontario (Ministry of Labour).

Submissions were directed to be provided by February 9, 2021.

The union grieved that the employer failed to provide a safe workplace for a correctional officer during an incident at the Vanier Centre for Women.

Following unsuccessful settlement discussions, the arbitrator issued procedural directions for the continuation of the hearing.

The union was ordered to provide particulars regarding claimed sick days, compensatory time off, and the specific alleged breaches of the collective agreement and occupational health and safety legislation.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule a motion to strike an affidavit filed by the responding party in an application for judicial review.

The underlying application concerns an arbitrator's decision regarding a grievance filed after a union member was sexually assaulted at work.

The court scheduled the motion to proceed before a single judge of the Divisional Court by ZOOM videoconference in October 2020 and set out the timetable for serving and filing materials.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability with respect to the special diet allowance provided under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The applicant sought a special diet allowance for the Poon Diet to treat depression, fibromyalgia, and chronic fatigue syndrome.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

Applying the test from Ball, the Tribunal found no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish general recognition in the Ontario medical community that the Poon Diet should be prescribed for her conditions.

The application was dismissed.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision finalizing a procedural order to manage multiple complaints regarding the special diet allowance.

The order establishes a timetable for selecting lead cases, disclosing documents, identifying issues, and filing evidence and pleadings.

The Tribunal incorporated minor changes requested by the respondent and the clinic caseworkers representing the complainants.

The respondent's right to request a stay of proceedings due to concurrent litigation before the Social Benefits Tribunal was preserved.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario held a case management conference to determine the procedure for 77 related complaints challenging the special diet allowance regime.

The Tribunal adopted a joint proposal by counsel to proceed with two to six lead cases to be heard together, finding it to be a fair, just, and expeditious manner of resolving the complex complaints.

The Tribunal also addressed privacy concerns by ordering that disclosure be exchanged only among parties to the lead cases and that lead complainants remain anonymous in public documents.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award upholding discipline against a grievor who refused to clean a workplace washroom.

The grievor, who had Hepatitis C, suffered a nosebleed and disposed of bloody tissues in the washroom.

When directed to clean and sanitize the area, he refused, claiming discrimination based on his disability.

The arbitrator found the employer's request reasonable and held that a single instance did not constitute a course of vexatious conduct under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no error in the arbitrator's conclusion that the incident was a matter of industrial discipline rather than discrimination or harassment.

The union applied for certification to represent employees at the employer's manufacturing plants.

The employer argued that the representation vote should be delayed under the 'build-up' principle, as it planned to significantly expand its workforce by opening new production lines.

The Board found that while the employer had a firm plan to expand its physical capacity, it was not reasonably certain that this would result in a sufficient increase in the number of employees within a reasonable time to justify delaying the vote.

The Board declined to apply the build-up principle, counted the ballots, and issued a certificate to the union.

The applicant union brought an application under section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act regarding a strike of counter attendants and car jockeys.

The responding party employer challenged whether the strike vote met the statutory requirements for ample opportunity to vote and secrecy of the ballot.

The Board found that the notice provided was sufficient and that the voting arrangements, while not perfect, provided a secret ballot process that employees could opt out of, satisfying the requirements of the Act.

As the strike had ended, the matter was terminated.