10 total
Human rights application dismissed for delay; pursuing internal union processes does not excuse late filing.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination after a job offer for a union organizer position was rescinded in 2007.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed in 2013, well beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The applicant argued that her pursuit of internal union dispute resolution processes and a 2008 contact with the Ontario Human Rights Commission constituted a good faith explanation for the delay.
The Tribunal found no series of incidents and held that pursuing other legal avenues does not establish a good faith explanation for delay.
The application was dismissed.
Grievance dismissed; night shift premium not payable for weekend overtime shifts under collective agreement.
The union filed a grievance on behalf of a Maintenance Service Person who worked overtime night shifts on Saturdays.
The grievor was paid the overtime premium but not the night shift premium.
The union argued that both premiums were payable and that this did not constitute pyramiding.
The employer argued that the collective agreement limited the night shift premium to regular hours and excluded weekend overtime hours.
The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement defined the night shift within the context of normal hours of work, and since the weekend shifts were not regular work days, the night shift premium was not payable.
Grievances alleging health and safety reprisals dismissed as moot after employer removed disciplinary letters.
The union filed three grievances alleging that the employer engaged in reprisals contrary to the Occupational Health and Safety Act by issuing disciplinary letters to the grievor following a work refusal and health and safety complaints.
Prior to the hearing, the employer removed the letters from the grievor's file on a without prejudice basis and argued the grievances were moot.
The union sought further declaratory relief and damages.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that proceeding with a lengthy hearing on largely moot issues would serve no labour relations purpose.
Grievance dismissed as untimely; five-year delay prejudiced employer and did not warrant time limit extension.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a grievance filed in October 1996 regarding alleged inhumane treatment and harassment that occurred prior to November 1988.
The grievor claimed the employer's actions caused his mental illness and inability to work, leading to his placement on Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) and CPP disability.
The Grievance Settlement Board found the grievance was not timely filed, as the circumstances giving rise to the complaint were known to the grievor by August 1991 at the latest.
The Board declined to exercise its discretion under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time limits, noting the extreme delay of over five years, the lack of due diligence, and the substantial prejudice to the employer.
The grievance was dismissed.
Grievance dismissed; employer established just cause for terminating probationary employee due to poor performance.
The grievor, a probationary Customer Service Representative, was terminated after approximately five months of employment due to poor work performance in cashiering and computer techniques.
The union grieved the termination, arguing that the employer lacked just cause and violated the collective agreement by failing to provide union representation at a meeting where performance concerns were discussed.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the meeting was not disciplinary in nature and therefore did not trigger union representation rights.
The Board further held that the employer had met its onus of establishing just cause by demonstrating that the grievor was provided with adequate training, was made aware of her deficiencies, and was reasonably assessed as unsuitable for permanent employment.
Grievance dismissed; discharge upheld for premeditated theft despite claims of gambling addiction.
The grievor, a senior part-time employee at the LCBO, was discharged for cashing four cheques totalling $7,000 without authorization and knowing he had insufficient funds.
The grievor claimed his actions were driven by a gambling addiction and threats from a loan shark.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer had just cause for discharge, as the thefts were premeditated and constituted a serious breach of trust in a retail environment.
The Board declined to mitigate the penalty, finding the grievor lacked credibility, failed to demonstrate genuine remorse, and had not taken meaningful steps toward rehabilitation for his gambling addiction.
Bereavement leave grievance allowed; 'immediate family' definition includes great-grandparents.
The grievor sought bereavement leave following the death of his great-grandmother.
The employer denied the leave, arguing that 'great-grandparent' was not explicitly listed in the collective agreement's definition of 'immediate family'.
The arbitrator found that the collective agreement used inclusive rather than exhaustive language ('shall include').
Applying a broad and purposive approach, the arbitrator concluded that a great-grandparent falls within the scope of 'immediate family', noting the inclusion of various in-law relationships and the direct line of consanguinity.
The grievance was allowed.
Grievance withdrawn after the grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing.
The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor.
A hearing was scheduled before the Grievance Settlement Board.
Despite numerous messages and correspondence from the union and its counsel, the grievor failed to attend the hearing and did not assist in preparation.
After waiting an hour, the union withdrew the grievance.
Board relieves against union's one-day delay in filing submissions and directs employer to proceed first.
In a certification application and related unfair labour practice complaint, the employer argued that the union had abandoned its challenges to the managerial status of four individuals by filing its submissions one business day late.
The Board exercised its discretion to relieve against the strict application of the Rules, finding the delay was marginal, caused no prejudice, and the union's position had been clear throughout.
The Board also ruled that the two applications would be heard together and directed the employer to proceed first in calling its evidence on all issues.
Affiliated bargaining agent is a proper responding party in a termination application; delivery to it satisfies statutory requirements.
The applicant filed a termination application naming Local 46 as the responding party.
Local 46 and the Ontario Pipe Trades Council (OPTC) argued the application should be dismissed because the OPTC, as the employee bargaining agency, was the only proper responding party and the application was not delivered to it.
The Board held that an affiliated bargaining agent like Local 46 holds bargaining rights and is a proper responding party.
The Board found the applicant complied with the delivery requirements under section 63(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and the Board's Rules by delivering the application to Local 46.
