Janice Baker

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the respondent hospital and the Ontario Hospital Association, alleging breaches of the duty to bargain in good faith and interference with statutory rights regarding the discontinuance of extended tours.

The respondents raised several preliminary objections, including that the complaint failed to disclose a prima facie case, that the Board should defer to arbitration, that the complaint lacked particularity, and that it was untimely.

The Board dismissed all preliminary objections, finding that the complaint raised complex issues of law and policy that required a full hearing on the merits, and that the issues transcended the collective agreement such that deferral to arbitration was inappropriate.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the grievor was discharged without just cause.

The employer terminated the grievor for failing to report his absence for three consecutive days, pursuant to a company rule.

The grievor had been injured at work prior to the absences and had reported sick on the first day, but failed to provide an expected return date or report on subsequent days.

The Board found that while the grievor breached the reporting rule, discharge was too severe a penalty given the employer's knowledge of his recent workplace injury.

The Board exercised its discretion to substitute the discharge with a six-week suspension without pay.

The complainant, a scoop operator, filed a complaint under section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging he was penalized for reporting a serious safety violation (blasting without posting guards).

The Board found that the foreman's conduct in portraying the complainant as a troublemaker to his peers constituted intimidation and coercion in violation of the Act.

However, the Board dismissed the allegation that the complainant's subsequent transfer to another level was a reprisal, finding it was a legitimate response to a temporary redundancy.

The employer was directed to post a notice acknowledging the violation.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer breached the statutory freeze provisions of the Labour Relations Act by discharging the grievor without just cause.

The grievor, a clerical employee with eight years of unblemished service, was discharged after claiming a safety boot subsidy for boots purchased for her husband and son.

The Board found that while the grievor's conduct was improper, the employer failed to apply its established policy of progressive discipline and had treated similar cases much more leniently in the past.

The Board concluded that the discharge was unjust and ordered the grievor reinstated with compensation, subject to a deduction equivalent to a three-day suspension.

The union brought a reference under section 82 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act concerning the status of six campus supervisors employed by the respondent college.

The employer argued that the supervisors exercised managerial functions and should be excluded from the support staff bargaining unit.

The Board examined the duties of the supervisors, which included security functions, monitoring campus events, and assigning work to three bargaining unit employees.

The Board found that the supervisors did not exercise sufficient authority over the bargaining unit employees to create a conflict of interest, nor did their security functions warrant exclusion under the Act.

The Board concluded that the campus supervisors were employees within the meaning of the Act and properly included in the bargaining unit.

One board member dissented.

The applicant union applied for certification of a tag-end unit of approximately thirteen foremen.

The respondent employer argued the foremen exercised managerial functions and should be excluded under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board examined the duties and responsibilities of the foremen, finding that while they exercised supervisory functions, they did not have effective control and authority over the employees they supervised, as they lacked the power of effective recommendation in hiring, firing, and discipline.

The Board concluded the foremen were employees entitled to engage in collective bargaining, with the exception of one accounting/billing foreman who had the authority to hire and was thus excluded.

The complainant alleged refusal to employ and promote because of nationality.

In this interim decision, the Board of Inquiry considered motions to set aside subpoenas duces tecum served on behalf of the Commission and the respondent.

The Board found that the subpoenas were issued for the purpose of obtaining discovery of documents rather than producing them in evidence at the hearing.

As there is no common-law right to discovery and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act only authorizes subpoenas for producing documents in evidence, the Board ordered the subpoenas set aside.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of all employees in N.D.P. Constituency offices in Ontario, naming the Province of Ontario Board of Internal Economy as the employer.

The Board applied the criteria for determining employer status and found that the individual Members of the Legislative Assembly exercise complete direction and control over the employees, including hiring, firing, and setting conditions of employment.

The Board of Internal Economy acts merely as a paymaster allocating funds.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the individual Members, not the Board of Internal Economy, are the employers.

The application for certification was dismissed.

The union applied under section 82 of The Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 1975 for a determination of whether several persons employed by the college were employees within the meaning of the Act and, if so, in which bargaining unit they belonged.

The Board examined the duties and responsibilities of seven positions.

It found that the Programmer-Analyst, Community Program Co-ordinators, Manager Evening Programs, and Media Specialist were employees in the support staff bargaining unit.

The Board excluded the Student Activities Co-ordinator and the Manager Client Services from the bargaining units by reason of their managerial duties and responsibilities.