John Collard Field

The applicant employer association referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board seeking damages against an individual employee who fraudulently claimed and received $11,650 in room and board allowances.

The Board held that while the employee was bound by the collective agreement, the agreement did not empower the Board to award damages against an individual employee.

The request for damages was dismissed, but the Board granted a declaration that the employee had violated the collective agreement by improperly claiming the allowance.

The applicants filed an unfair labour practice complaint and referred two grievances to arbitration, alleging the respondents failed to abide by work jurisdiction determinations and changed work methods to avoid assigning work to the applicants.

The respondents and intervener argued the matters were essentially jurisdictional disputes that should be deferred or dismissed.

The Board dismissed the preliminary motion to defer the unfair labour practice complaint and the mark-up grievance, finding they raised issues beyond mere work assignment, but adjourned the work assignment grievance.

The Board also granted the applicants leave to amend their complaint and granted the intervener full standing in the proceedings.

The employer filed two grievances under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act against individual employees and their respective unions, alleging the employees breached the collective agreement by failing to return tools and improperly receiving subsistence allowances.

The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding arbitrability, proper delivery of the grievances, and delay.

The Board reserved its decision on whether an employer can grieve against individual employees until the merits are heard.

The Board held that delivery of the grievance to the local union satisfied the statutory requirement, and delivery to the individual employees was not required.

However, the Board dismissed the grievance concerning the subsistence allowance due to the employer's unexplained 14-month delay in pursuing the matter.

During a hearing on a Charter challenge to section 12 of the Labour Relations Act, the respondents objected to a Board Member sitting on the panel due to comments he made in the Ontario Legislature 20 years prior.

The Board dismissed the bias objection, finding the comments did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Board also ruled that expert evidence concerning the scope of freedom of association in other countries was inadmissible during the section 2(d) phase of the hearing, though the proposed expert was found qualified to testify on comparative European labour law in the section 1 phase.

The complainant, a psychiatric nurse of Burmese descent, alleged that her employer, North York General Hospital, and her unit administrator discriminated against her on the basis of race and colour.

She claimed that constructive criticisms of her nursing care and subsequent disciplinary actions, including suspensions and termination, constituted racial harassment and reprisals for filing a human rights complaint.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaints, finding that the unit administrator's actions were motivated by genuine concerns for patient care and the complainant's insubordination, not racial prejudice.

The evidence demonstrated that the complainant refused to accept constructive criticism and exhibited a distorted perception of reality, leading to the deterioration of her employment relationship.