6 total
Thomson Newspapers found to be the employer of Oshawa Times employees for pay equity purposes.
Thomson Newspapers objected to a Review Officer's Order finding it to be the employer for the purposes of pay equity of employees at the Oshawa Times.
The Tribunal reviewed the relationship between the two entities and concluded that, while the publisher of the Oshawa Times controlled the operation of the newspaper, he did so as an employee of Thomson.
As such he was obliged to carry out Thomson's corporate goals and objectives.
Overriding financial control rested with Thomson as did ultimate authority for compensation practices.
The Tribunal affirmed the Review Officer's order and found Thomson to be the employer.
Human rights complaint dismissed; extending probation for an employee unable to perform due to depression constitutes undue hardship.
The complainant, a probationary employee, was released from his position as a Systems Operator due to unsatisfactory performance.
He alleged that his poor performance was caused by a mental handicap (depression and anxiety) and that the employer failed to accommodate him by extending his probationary period.
The Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaint, finding no indirect discrimination as the evidence indicated the complainant would not have performed satisfactorily even without the handicap.
Furthermore, the Board held that extending the probationary period to accumulate symptom-free time would constitute an undue hardship and was not a reasonable accommodation that would enable the complainant to fulfill the essential duties of the position.
Human rights complaint dismissed; despite statistical evidence of systemic bias, individual applicant was assessed fairly.
The complainant, a 50-year-old black woman, alleged she was denied employment as a correctional officer due to her race, sex, and age.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission presented extensive statistical evidence demonstrating systemic bias against women and non-Europeans in the respondent's hiring practices, which the Board accepted as establishing a prima facie case of discrimination.
However, the Board dismissed the individual complaint, finding that the superintendent who interviewed the complainant assessed her fairly and objectively, and reasonably concluded she lacked the necessary characteristics to manage inmates effectively.
Board has jurisdiction under s. 95(2) to determine if persons are employees of a specific employer.
The applicant union applied under section 95(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether certain persons were employees of the respondent.
The respondent and intervener objected to the jurisdiction of the Board Officer to conduct an inquiry, arguing that there was no 'question' as to employee status since they conceded the persons were employees within the meaning of the Act, just not employees of the respondent.
The Board rejected this argument, holding that it has jurisdiction under section 95(2) to determine not only if a person is an employee, but also whether they are an employee of the specific employer party to the collective agreement.
The Board revised the Board Officer's appointment to inquire into whether the individuals are employees of the respondent.
Board determines bargaining unit status of various community college administrative and clerical staff.
The union referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 82 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act to determine whether several individuals were employees included in the support staff bargaining unit.
The Board examined the duties and responsibilities of the individuals to determine if they were employed in a managerial or confidential capacity.
The Board found that the executive secretary to the Director of Plant and Services was excluded due to her confidential capacity.
The office manager and a general clerk in the Personnel department were found not to exercise sufficient managerial or confidential duties and were included in the unit.
The Divisional Directors and Assistant Divisional Directors of Continuing Education were found to exercise significant managerial functions over the continuing education program and part-time staff, and were excluded from the bargaining unit.
College Heads at Trent University excluded from faculty bargaining unit due to managerial functions.
The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of faculty and professional librarians at Trent University.
The Board previously certified the applicant on an interim basis and appointed an Examiner to inquire into the duties of 'College Heads'.
After reviewing the Examiner's report, the Board determined that College Heads exercise significant managerial functions, particularly regarding the supervision and administration of support staff, which occupies half of their time.
Consequently, the Board held that College Heads are excluded from the bargaining unit under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act and issued a formal certificate.
