Jim Simmons

The employer City applied to the Board to determine whether certain platoon chiefs exercised managerial functions under section 54(2) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, despite having already designated them as managerial exclusions under section 54(4).

The Association objected, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to determine the status of designated individuals.

The Board agreed with the Association, finding that the Act provides two mutually exclusive routes for managerial exclusions.

Because the individuals were already conclusively deemed to be exercising managerial functions by virtue of the employer's designation, there was no 'question' for the Board to determine.

The application was permitted to proceed only with respect to non-designated persons.

The complainant, an employee of the respondent, went on medical leave due to reactive depression and chronic fatigue syndrome.

When her long-term disability benefits ended, her doctor cleared her to return to work with restrictions.

The respondent failed to clarify these restrictions, did not consider her for contract or general clerical work, and required her to compete for a position over a year later.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondent directly discriminated against the complainant on the basis of handicap by failing to accommodate her return to work.

The respondent was ordered to pay lost wages, provide service recognition credits, and pay $10,000 in general damages.

The appellant union appealed an inspector's decision finding that the City had complied with an earlier order regarding firefighter response protocols.

The union sought an interim order requiring the City to schedule two full-time firefighters at all times or instruct them not to respond to calls until two firefighters were on the vehicle.

The City raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction to issue an interim order under s. 61(3.4) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act once a hearing had commenced.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the hearing and consultation processes are not mutually exclusive.

However, the Board dismissed the request for an interim order, concluding that the union failed to demonstrate compelling grounds to interfere with the inspector's decision or that the firefighters' health and safety would be jeopardized without the order, given the City's standard operating procedures for one-person crews.

The Board heard two appeals under section 61 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act regarding orders issued by an inspector concerning firefighter staffing.

The City withdrew its appeal after the inspector issued a subsequent decision finding the City in compliance.

The Board dismissed the City's appeal.

The Association maintained its appeal of the inspector's subsequent decision and requested an interim order regarding minimum staffing levels.

The Board established a timetable for written submissions on the interim order request and scheduled hearing dates for the Association's appeal.