Glenn Christie

The applicant, a firefighter, filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking production of several documents, including the employer's driving and insurance policies, his driver's abstract, notes, and expert reports related to the decision not to allow him to drive fire vehicles.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the policies were not arguably relevant, the request for notes and expert reports was speculative, and the applicant could obtain his own driver's abstract.

The grievor, a bus driver, was terminated for texting on her cell phone while driving a bus with passengers.

The union grieved the termination, arguing the penalty was excessive and seeking a lesser penalty.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor had a prior disciplinary record for the same offence, had signed a condition of continued employment, and demonstrated a lack of remorse and dishonesty throughout the investigation and hearing.

The termination was upheld.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment and with respect to membership in a vocational association.

During the hearing of the applications, the applicant requested to withdraw both applications.

The respondents consented to the withdrawals.

The Tribunal granted the requests and the applications were withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

During a grievance arbitration regarding the termination of a bus driver for texting while driving, the Union objected to the admission of the grievor's cell phone records.

The Employer had obtained the records from Rogers via a subpoena issued by the Board, but had excused the Rogers representative from attending the hearing.

The Union argued this was litigation by ambush, a violation of PIPEDA, and an abuse of process.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the objections, finding that the records were arguably relevant, obtained under a valid subpoena (which satisfies PIPEDA exceptions), and that the procedure used did not constitute an abuse of process.

The Union raised a preliminary objection seeking to exclude a forensic handwriting analyst's report, arguing that the Employer breached the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by providing the grievor's handwriting samples from business documents to the analyst.

The Employer used the samples to identify the grievor as the author of an offensive comment on a sympathy card.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the objection, finding that the labour relations exceptions in s. 65(6) of the Act applied, as the documents were used in relation to anticipated proceedings and employment-related matters in which the Employer had an interest.

During an arbitration hearing, an issue arose regarding a summons issued to Rogers, the delivery of requested documents to the employer's counsel, and the employer's failure to produce those records to the union.

The union requested an adjournment.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to provide the union with a copy of the summons, details of any communications with Rogers regarding the summons, and the dates of service and receipt of documents.

The Board also permitted the union to confer with the grievor on this issue only.

The applicant, a Black temporary general labourer, alleged racial discrimination in employment by the respondent temporary employment agency and its employees.

He claimed he was unfairly disciplined following an altercation with a client's security guard, given less desirable shifts, and denied the opportunity to take a test for a higher-paying position.

The Tribunal found no evidence of racial discrimination.

The discipline was based on the applicant's inappropriate conduct, scheduling decisions were based on availability and client needs, and the applicant did not qualify for the higher-paying position because he failed to achieve the required score on an initial aptitude test.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding his termination.

He had also commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal arising from the same facts.

The Tribunal considered whether the application was barred under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that because the civil action did not specifically claim a Code infringement or seek a remedy under the Code, the application was not barred.

However, on the agreement of both parties, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the resolution of the civil action.

The union grieved that the grievor was not paid the correct premium for working on a statutory holiday.

The union argued that working on a statutory holiday constituted overtime, and because the grievor was forced to work, she was entitled to a higher premium rate under the collective agreement.

The employer maintained that statutory holiday work and overtime were governed by separate provisions, and the statutory holiday provision did not include an enhanced premium for forced work.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement treated overtime and statutory holiday pay as separate and distinct, and the hours worked on the statutory holiday did not attract the forced overtime premium.

The Grievor, who had returned to work after a stem cell transplant for cancer, was required to attend regular follow-up appointments at the hospital.

The employer denied his request to use short-term sick leave benefits for these absences, arguing he was not 'unable to attend to his duties due to sickness' as required by the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the grievance, finding that the mandatory five-year follow-up protocol was an integral part of the Grievor's initial cancer treatment.

Therefore, the absences qualified for paid sick leave under the collective agreement.

The grievor, a bus driver with 16 years of service, was terminated after writing and posting a threatening letter to a female co-worker who had left garbage on a bus.

The grievor had a prior disciplinary record, including a recent six-day suspension for insubordination.

The Union argued that termination was excessive and proposed a last chance agreement, citing the grievor's medical history of depression.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the discharge, finding the threat was premeditated, the grievor lacked true remorse, and no medical evidence was led to support a last chance agreement or mitigate the risk of future workplace violence.

The parties agreed to adjourn the scheduled hearing dates in November and December 2001 due to the anticipated passage of Bill 130.

The applicant undertook to advise the Board by December 20, 2001, whether it would also seek to adjourn the January 2002 hearing dates.

The Board granted the adjournment.

The applicant union sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, arguing that the responding party service providers and the community care access centre constituted a single employer.

The responding parties brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application, arguing that even if the prerequisites of section 1(4) were met, the Board should not exercise its discretion to grant the declaration.

The Board agreed, finding that the loss of work by the unionized service provider was due to a government-mandated competitive bidding process, not a scheme to defeat bargaining rights.

The Board concluded there was no labour relations mischief to remedy and dismissed the application without a hearing on the merits.

The applicant, Zellers Incorporated, sought a review of an Order to Pay severance pay to the claimant following the closure of a Kmart store.

The applicant argued it was relieved of the obligation to pay severance because it had offered the claimant reasonable alternative employment at another store location.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the alternative position offered was reasonable, as its advantages outweighed the sole disadvantage of a longer bus commute.

The Board rescinded the Order to Pay, concluding the applicant was not obliged to pay severance pay.

The applicant employee filed an application to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding union in the ICI sector of the construction industry.

The responding union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application, arguing that the applicant failed to serve notice on each Affiliated Bargaining Agency and constituent member of the Employee Bargaining Agency as required by section 63(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the applicant had served the trade union named on the ICI certificate, which was a party to the collective agreement.

Consequently, the Board held that the service requirements were met and dismissed the preliminary motion.

The union applied under section 43 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

The parties had reached an impasse over the employer's insistence on an 'elect to work' scheduling model, which the employer claimed was necessary to remain competitive in the home care market.

The Board found that the collective bargaining process had been unsuccessful due to the uncompromising nature of the employer's position without reasonable justification, particularly given the employer's refusal to provide financial data to substantiate its claims of competitive necessity.

The Board directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The Ontario Nurses' Association filed an unfair labour practice complaint against Comcare, alleging that the employer's actions during a lawful strike violated the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union argued that the employer unlawfully intimidated striking nurses by contacting them about their availability, issuing Records of Employment, and terminating their benefits.

The union also alleged that the employer's use and payment of replacement workers constituted unlawful strike-breaking and surface bargaining.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the employer's communications, while 'playing hardball' and intended to bring home the economic consequences of the strike, were not unlawfully intimidating or coercive.

The Board also found that the employer had a rational business reason for its use and payment of replacement workers, and that its actions did not constitute a breach of the Act.