19 total
Professional engineer's licence revoked for providing substandard structural drawings and practising without a Certificate of Authorization.
The Member faced disciplinary proceedings for professional misconduct related to signing and sealing substandard structural drawings for a greenhouse at a healthcare facility, and for providing engineering services in Ontario without a Certificate of Authorization.
The Member admitted to the allegations in an Agreed Statement of Facts.
The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, finding that the Member's actions were dishonourable and unprofessional, and posed a risk to the public.
The Committee revoked the Member's licence and ordered summary publication of the decision.
Judicial review of Labour Relations Board decision dismissed; finding of no unlawful employer support was reasonable.
The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision granting bargaining rights to a competing union.
The applicant argued that a voluntary recognition agreement between the employer and the competing union constituted unlawful employer support under s. 53 of the Labour Relations Act.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's conclusion that the agreement was a bona fide settlement of an outstanding application, rather than unlawful support, was reasonable and entitled to deference.
Pre-2011 human rights allegations dismissed for delay; waiting for internal investigation does not justify delay.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by her employer.
The respondent requested to dismiss allegations pre-dating December 11, 2011 for delay, and requested a summary hearing for the remaining surveillance allegation.
The Tribunal dismissed the older allegations, finding no good faith explanation for the delay, as waiting for an internal investigation to conclude does not justify delay.
The request for a summary hearing was denied.
The applicant's request to amend was dismissed without prejudice, and the union's request to intervene was granted.
Memorandum of Agreement found to be a valid collective agreement incorporating terms of other agreements by reference.
The Board considered whether a Memorandum of Agreement between Tyger Construction Inc. and the Labourers' International Union of North America (OPDC) constituted a valid collective agreement.
The Carpenters' Union had applied for certification, and the OPDC argued its agreement was a bar.
The Board determined that the Memorandum of Agreement was a valid collective agreement.
It found that the agreement incorporated by reference the terms and conditions of other collective agreements for non-ICI work, but did not make Tyger a party to those other separate collective agreements.
The Board concluded that the OPDC holds valid bargaining rights for construction labourers as defined in the agreement.
Board ordered responding party to produce payroll records to verify amounts owed under settlement agreement.
The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The parties had reached an agreement in principle to resolve the dispute over remittances and wages, but disagreed over the details.
The applicant sought an order directing the production of relevant records to verify the amounts owed.
The responding party did not oppose the request.
The Board directed the responding party to produce payroll and time records for the period ending November 1999.
The Board remained seized of the matter should the parties be unable to agree on the amounts or if the applicant sought production for a period beyond November 1999.
Grievance referral adjourned sine die pending provision of particulars and document production.
The applicant referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The responding party raised preliminary motions seeking particulars and requesting dismissal for abuse of process.
The Board directed the applicant to provide specific particulars of the grievance within twenty working days.
Given the need for particulars, pending document production from a related proceeding, and ongoing judicial proceedings, the Board adjourned the matter sine die for up to one year, setting out a schedule for the exchange of material facts should the matter be relisted.
Duty of fair representation application dismissed; union acted reasonably regarding applicant's mandatory retirement.
The applicant filed an application alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act regarding his mandatory retirement at age 65.
The applicant claimed the union failed to adequately address his concerns about severance or continued employment.
The Board dismissed the application, finding the union made reasonable efforts to assist the applicant, including seeking legal advice which confirmed his complaint had no basis for success.
The union had no obligation to file a grievance as the applicant never requested one and there was no apparent breach of the collective agreement.
Board directs employer to assign security glazing installation work to Glaziers based on area practice.
The applicant union filed a jurisdictional dispute under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the assignment of security glazing installation work at a correctional facility.
The work had been assigned to the applicant's members, but the responding Glaziers union claimed the work.
The Board dismissed preliminary motions regarding reasonable apprehension of bias and requests for adjournment.
On the merits, the Board found that the overwhelming area practice in Board Area 8 favoured the Glaziers for interior installation of transparent materials.
The Board directed the employers to assign the disputed work to members of the Glaziers.
Board limits document production to 10-year period and denies adjournment request in related employer applications.
In related applications concerning grievances, sale of a business, and related employer declarations, the applicants sought production of documents dating back to 1978 based on a prior settlement agreement.
The Board ruled that requiring production of documents older than 1990 would be oppressive and outweighed their marginal relevance.
The Board ordered production of various corporate, financial, and project documents from 1990 onwards.
The applicants' subsequent request for an adjournment to review the newly produced documents was denied, as the responding parties would be presenting their evidence first and cross-examination could begin on areas where production was complete.
Board issued procedural directions on pleadings and document production in a related employer application.
The applicant union brought an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133.
At a pre-hearing consultation, the parties agreed to adjourn the grievance referral sine die pending the determination of the related employer/sale of business application.
The intervenor union withdrew from the application but reserved the right to intervene in the grievance proceeding.
The Board issued directions regarding the filing of amended pleadings and the production of documents, and referred the application to the Registrar to be listed for hearing before another panel.
Employer failed to prove union abandoned bargaining rights obtained through 1963 voluntary recognition agreement.
The applicant trade union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board, alleging the responding employer violated the provincial collective agreement.
The employer argued the union had abandoned its bargaining rights obtained through a 1963 voluntary recognition agreement.
The Board found that the employer failed to rebut the presumption against abandonment, noting the employer's agreement that the union never intended to abandon its rights.
The Board declared the employer bound by the provincial collective agreement.
Board dismisses Millwrights' grievance but allows Operating Engineers' grievance regarding scope of collective agreements.
Two unions referred grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding work performed by the employer on a barge.
The employer argued the work was ship repair/refitting and not covered by the construction industry collective agreements.
The Board dismissed the Millwrights' grievance, finding the work on a chattel (the barge) was not 'construction' under their provincial agreement, nor did it qualify as 'maintenance' under their maintenance agreement.
However, the Board allowed the Operating Engineers' grievance, finding their province-wide agreement was not restricted to the construction industry and applied to the crane operation work which constituted steel erection or mechanical installation.
A voluntarily recognized trade union is not barred from applying for certification under the Labour Relations Act.
The applicant union applied for certification.
The respondent employer argued the application was barred by a prior voluntary recognition agreement entered into by the parties.
The Board held that while section 5(3) of the Labour Relations Act precludes another trade union from applying for certification within one year of a recognition agreement, it does not prevent the voluntarily recognized union itself from applying for certification.
The Board noted that voluntary recognition does not confer the same statutory rights as certification, such as the right to compel bargaining or access conciliation.
Therefore, the application was not barred.
Board rejects restricted bargaining unit description for craft union in construction industry certification application.
The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of carpenters engaged in the installation of exterior cladding systems.
The respondent employer argued for a broader unit of all carpenters and carpenters' apprentices.
The Board ruled that in the construction industry, a craft union must seek to represent all members of its craft employed by the respondent, and therefore rejected the applicant's restricted description.
The Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and appointed an officer to inquire into the employment status of certain individuals characterized by the respondent as independent contractors.
Certification application allowed to proceed after intervener withdrew its claim of a pre-existing collective agreement bar.
The intervener union claimed a pre-existing collective agreement with the respondent employer barred the application.
The applicant challenged the validity of the agreement under sections 48 and 60 of the Labour Relations Act.
Following written submissions where the respondent and objectors also disputed the agreement's validity, the intervener withdrew its intervention and its claim to the collective agreement bar.
The Board found no bar to the certification application, noting that by withdrawing in the face of a challenge, the intervener abandoned any bargaining rights it might have held for the affected employees.
Board directed written submissions on threshold issue of collective agreement bar to expedite certification application.
The applicant union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint.
The intervener union claimed an existing collective agreement barred the application.
At the hearing, the Board received evidence on this threshold issue but ran out of time for oral submissions.
The Board directed the parties to file written submissions on the collective agreement bar issue to expedite the proceedings, balancing the right to make submissions with the need for expedition in labour relations matters.
Decertification application dismissed as employees were hired contrary to collective agreement and excluded from bargaining unit.
The applicant employees applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.
The union challenged the list of employees filed by the employer, arguing that the three individuals on the list were not hired in accordance with the union security and hiring hall provisions of the collective agreement.
The Board found that the individuals were hired contrary to the collective agreement and, applying the April Waterproofing principle, concluded they were not properly included in the bargaining unit.
As a result, less than forty-five percent of the employees in the bargaining unit had voluntarily signified they no longer wished to be represented by the union, and the application was dismissed.
Board refuses to dismiss unfair labour practice complaint for delay and applies reverse onus provision.
The complainant alleged that his former employer and union conspired to dismiss him, contrary to the Labour Relations Act.
The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the complaint should be dismissed due to delay and res judicata.
The majority of the Board refused to dismiss the complaint on the basis of delay, finding that the complainant only had suspicions until the alleged conspiracy was made public, and that res judicata did not apply.
The Board unanimously ruled that the reverse onus provision in subsection 89(5) applied, as the complaint involved allegations of anti-union animus affecting employment.
The Board ordered the employer to proceed first with its evidence.
Board orders separate bargaining units for shop and construction employees of railing manufacturer.
The applicant union sought certification for a single all-employee bargaining unit encompassing both the respondent's shop employees and its on-site construction installers.
The respondent argued for separate bargaining units.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the respondent engaged in both construction and non-construction activities but did not use a common work force for both.
Consequently, the Board ruled that the shop employees and the construction employees must constitute separate bargaining units, leaving the precise descriptions to be determined with a Labour Relations Officer.
