Jerry Raso

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decided that employer contributions to an injured worker's health, welfare, and pension benefit plan were not 'earnings' under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

The Divisional Court quashed this decision, finding it patently unreasonable because the Tribunal failed to consider the legislative history of the definition of earnings.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Tribunal's appeal, holding that the Tribunal was bound to apply the Board's operational policy, which did not include such contributions as earnings.

The Tribunal's decision was rational and entitled to deference, and the failure to consider legislative history did not constitute a reviewable legal error.

The applicant suffered a workplace injury and was granted Future Economic Loss benefits.

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board calculated his pre-injury earnings without including his employer's contributions to his union's health and pension plans.

The applicant appealed to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, which upheld the decision.

The applicant applied for judicial review.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding the Tribunal's decision patently unreasonable because it failed to consider the legislative history and the government's explanation for the applicable statutory provisions.

The applicant sought a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the responding party trade union, claiming it was a 'non-construction employer' under section 127.2 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding party and intervenor brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application on the basis of res judicata, arguing that the Board had previously determined the applicant was an employer in the construction industry.

The Board agreed, finding that earlier decisions had conclusively determined the applicant carried on business in the construction industry.

As the statutory definitions had not materially changed, the applicant was precluded from relitigating the issue.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant trade unions filed unfair labour practice complaints against the Premier of Ontario and the Minister of Labour, alleging that the respondents unlawfully threatened legislative changes to the construction industry's provincial bargaining scheme (Bill 69) to pressure the unions into abandoning certain bargaining rights.

The unions also argued that the Ontario Labour Relations Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint due to a reasonable apprehension of bias, as the Board's adjudicators are appointed by the government.

The Board declined to find that its adjudicators were precluded from hearing the case.

On the merits, the Board dismissed the complaints, holding that the Labour Relations Act does not bind the Crown or its Ministers acting in their legislative or governmental capacities.

Furthermore, the Board found that a government's expression of intent to legislate does not constitute intimidation, coercion, or unlawful interference under the Act.

The union referred grievances to arbitration alleging the employer failed to pay shift premiums for weekend and holiday work, and unlawfully deducted alleged past overpayments from employees' wages.

The Board found that the collective agreement did not provide for a shift premium for weekend work, dismissing those grievances.

However, the Board held that the employer's unilateral deduction of past overpayments from subsequent paycheques was an unlawful set-off under section 8 of the Employment Standards Act, and ordered the employer to repay the deducted amounts with interest.

The Sheet Metal Workers filed a work assignment complaint under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, claiming that the dismantling and removal of sheet metal siding from a warehouse for reuse off-site should have been assigned to its members rather than the Labourers.

The Board considered Ontario Hydro's long-standing policy, which distinguishes between materials reused on-site versus off-site.

Finding that the skills, training, and economy criteria did not favour either union, the Board relied on the employer's established policy and practice.

The Board affirmed the assignment of the work to the Labourers and dismissed the application.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding employer failed to pay required remittances under the collective agreement.

The employer did not formally appear, but its president testified as a witness for the union, confirming the employer was insolvent and in receivership.

The Board found the employer bound by the collective agreement and in violation of its remittance obligations for October and November 2000.

The Board ordered the employer to pay $8,851.58 in damages and $749.00 in filing fees, subject to any legal restrictions imposed by the receivership.

The applicant union filed a grievance against the responding companies under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The parties reached Minutes of Settlement agreeing that the companies are related employers under section 1(4) of the Act and are bound to the collective agreement.

The Board issued consent orders and declarations in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement.

The employer applied for a declaration under section 127.2 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 that it was a non-construction employer and that the union no longer represented its construction employees.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application, arguing that the employer's status was res judicata from a 1982 decision, and alternatively, that the employer still employed construction workers on the application date.

The Board rejected the res judicata argument due to intervening statutory changes.

However, the Board found that the striking craft workers were construction employees and remained employed by the employer on the application date pursuant to section 1(2) of the Act.

The application was dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board, alleging the responding party general contractor violated a non-subcontracting clause by subcontracting work to a company not bound by the applicant's collective agreement.

The responding party and intervenor requested an adjournment to permit the filing of a jurisdictional dispute application, arguing the work was claimed by multiple trades.

The Board applied the Robertson Yates framework and granted the adjournment, finding that the dispute involved competing claims from three different trades and was more appropriately resolved as a jurisdictional dispute rather than a bilateral grievance arbitration.

The applicant union filed a grievance and an unfair labour practice complaint after a union member, dispatched to work for a subcontractor at an Ontario Hydro nuclear facility, was denied security clearance by Ontario Hydro and subsequently laid off.

The union alleged that Ontario Hydro's refusal to defend the application of its security clearance policy in the grievance proceedings violated sections 56, 57(1), and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint, finding that Ontario Hydro was not the employer of the dispatched worker and had no contractual obligation under the collective agreement to substantiate the subcontractor's decision not to hire.

The Board further held that a general contractor or owner requiring the removal of a subcontractor's employee for security reasons does not constitute unlawful interference with trade union representation.

The applicant union filed a grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act alleging that the respondent employer improperly assigned the assembly of a metal meter shed to a mixed crew of carpenters and labourers instead of sheet metal workers.

The intervener union argued that the work was properly assigned based on established practice.

The Board determined that the matter was essentially a jurisdictional dispute that should be dealt with under section 91 of the Act to allow all interested parties, including the unrepresented labourers' union, to participate.

The Board adjourned the section 124 application for 30 days to permit the filing of a jurisdictional dispute.

The complainant, a journeyman sheetmetal worker and health and safety representative, alleged he was laid off in reprisal for his health and safety activities, contrary to section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The employer claimed the layoff was due to a shortage of work.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer failed to discharge its reverse onus to prove that no part of the decision to lay off the complainant was motivated by his legitimate health and safety activities.

The Board noted the foreman's negative reactions to the complainant's safety duties and the lack of prior performance complaints.

The complaint was allowed, and the employer was ordered to reinstate and compensate the complainant.