8 total
Judicial review dismissed; arbitrator reasonably concluded physician assistants fall within the paramedical bargaining unit.
The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitral award which concluded that physician assistants fell within the scope of the paramedical bargaining unit under the collective agreement.
The hospital argued the arbitrator exceeded his mandate and applied an overly broad definition of 'paramedical'.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable, grounded in the ordinary meaning of the word, the parties' practice, and labour jurisprudence, and did not improperly sweep in other excluded employee groups.
Appeal dismissed; trial judge's findings of no harm and no intent to defraud upheld.
The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claims for fraud and conspiracy against a former employee and a supplier.
The employee had arranged for the supplier to provide gifts to employees in lieu of overtime pay, using falsified invoices to conceal the purchases from the corporate parent.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions that the company suffered no actual damage and that the defendants lacked the requisite intent to cause harm.
The court also rejected the appellant's argument that the trial judge's comments during the hearing created a reasonable apprehension of bias.
Human rights application deferred pending completion of ongoing union grievance on same facts.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and creed.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance.
The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant did not file submissions.
The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid inconsistent decisions, as the issues in both proceedings overlapped significantly.
Tribunal sets formula for calculating and allocating retroactive pay equity adjustments from 1% of payroll.
The Employer brought an application regarding a Review Officer's Order concerning the calculation and allocation of the 1% of payroll available for pay equity adjustments between 1990 and 1997.
The Tribunal directed the Employer to devote 1% of the bargaining unit's payroll to create a pool for these adjustments and set out a specific formula for calculating retroactive payments.
The Tribunal also ordered the implementation of the pay equity adjusted rates by March 23, 2002, and revoked the Review Officer's Order.
Board directs section 96 application to proceed before related certification status challenges.
The parties disagreed on the order of proceeding for related certification and unfair labour practice applications.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed that the section 96 application proceed first, and that any witnesses testifying in that application who are also subject to status challenges be questioned on status issues at the same time to avoid recalling them.
Employment Standards Act appeal resolved by settlement; funds disbursed to employee and administration fee retained.
The applicant employer appealed an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.
The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.
The Board ordered the Director in trust to disburse $2,330.92 to the employee and retain the $233.09 administration fee, with interest paid proportionately.
The matter was deemed terminated subject to the Ministry of Labour requesting a hearing within ten days.
Duty of fair representation application dismissed; union's agreement to restore another employee's seniority was not arbitrary.
The applicant filed an application alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.
The union had agreed with the employer to restore the seniority of another employee who had previously resigned after being denied a leave of absence.
This restoration of seniority caused the other employee to win a job competition over the applicant.
The union subsequently withdrew a grievance filed on the applicant's behalf regarding the job posting.
The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union's decision to restore the other employee's seniority was made in good faith to rectify what it viewed as an improper denial of leave, and its actions were not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith toward the applicant.
Union certified after Board excludes three challenged ballots in construction industry representation vote.
The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.
A representation vote was held, and the union challenged the eligibility of three individuals, arguing they were not performing bargaining unit work on the application date.
Following a hearing, the Board issued a bottom-line decision finding the three individuals were not performing bargaining unit work and their ballots would not be counted.
As more than 50 per cent of the valid ballots were cast in favour of the union, the Board ordered the issuance of certificates for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector and all other sectors in the relevant geographic area.
