Jorge Hurtado

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award finding it breached the collective agreement by transferring work to a different geographic location.

The employer argued the arbitrator unreasonably interpreted the scope of the 'Work of the Bargaining Unit' clause and failed to find that bargaining unit members were deprived of overtime.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable based on its express wording and context.

The Court also found the arbitrator made the requisite factual finding regarding the deprivation of overtime, which was owed deference.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled hearing on March 19, 2021.

By a previous order, she was required to provide reasons for her absence by April 2, 2021, failing which the matter would be deemed dismissed.

As no reasons were provided, the grievance was dismissed.

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled video hearing for her grievance.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to provide reasons for her absence to Union counsel by a specified date, failing which the grievance would be deemed dismissed.

If reasons are provided, the Employer will determine whether it is satisfied with them or seeks dismissal.

The parties consented to an order requiring the union to provide further and better particulars to the employer regarding the August 15, 2018 grievance.

The particulars must include the facts supporting the alleged breach of the collective agreement, including what was done, when, where, by whom, and with what motivation.

The particulars are to be treated as confidential and provided by February 1, 2021.

The applicant sought to re-activate his human rights application alleging workplace reprisal, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a union grievance process.

The grievance process concluded in April 2016, but the applicant did not request re-activation until April 2017, well beyond the 60-day deadline under the Tribunal's Rules.

The Tribunal denied the request and dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to provide a good explanation for his failure to inquire about the status of his grievance and that the lengthy delay would prejudice the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her union discriminated against her on the basis of disability by failing to adequately represent her after a workplace injury.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that even if the union officials behaved neglectfully and allowed the grievance timeline to expire, there was no factual foundation to suggest the failure to act was based on discriminatory factors.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on place of origin, ethnic origin, age, and reprisal against his employer, a co-worker/union steward, and his union.

Following a case management call to address preliminary issues, the Tribunal issued an interim decision allowing the applicant to amend his pleadings to include the grounds of race and vocational association.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to add the union as a respondent and set deadlines for the union to file a response and for the parties to exchange documents prior to the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the resolution of three concurrent grievance proceedings dealing with the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal deferred the application, finding no reason to depart from its normal practice.

The respondents requested that the union be added as a respondent or, alternatively, as an intervenor.

The Tribunal declined to add the union as a respondent because the application contained no allegations that could support a finding of a Code violation by the union.

However, the Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, consistent with its practice of allowing a bargaining agent to intervene in an employee's human rights application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal, claiming he was suspended and dismissed for failing to participate in a cover-up of alleged Code violations.

A concurrent grievance regarding his suspension and termination was scheduled for arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting the substantial overlap in facts and issues and the arbitrator's jurisdiction to apply human rights law.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of place of origin, ethnic origin, and age.

The applicant also had an outstanding duty of fair representation complaint before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) involving similar facts and allegations against the union.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the OLRB proceeding.

Given the advanced stage of the OLRB matter, the factual similarity, and the applicant's request to add the union as a respondent, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal, claiming he was suspended and dismissed for failing to participate in a cover-up of alleged Code violations.

He sought an interim remedy of reinstatement, citing financial hardship.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant failed to establish that an interim remedy was necessary to facilitate a complete and effective remedy at the end of the hearing.

The Tribunal also directed submissions on a request to intervene and whether the application should be deferred pending a related grievance arbitration.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled hearing to clarify allegations and discuss a timetable.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant received notice of the hearing and the potential consequences of failing to attend.

As a result, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and colour regarding the termination of her employment.

Prior to the application, the applicant's union had grieved the termination, resulting in a settlement where the applicant received $5,000 and signed a release covering any human rights claims related to her employment.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that allowing the application to proceed after the applicant had settled the grievance and released the respondent would constitute an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

The union referred two grievances to the Grievance Settlement Board alleging that a manager threatened the grievor with death and that management failed to investigate.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the grievances were barred by a prior unfair labour practice settlement and were inarbitrable due to a complete failure to follow the grievance procedure.

The Vice-Chair rejected the estoppel and abuse of process arguments, finding the settlement did not preclude the grievances.

However, the Vice-Chair upheld the objection regarding the grievance procedure, as the grievor completely failed to file the grievances with the employer or follow the required steps.

The grievances were dismissed as inarbitrable.

The Union requested an adjournment sine die of a hearing scheduled for August 21, 2009, due to the grievor's disruptive conduct in a previous hearing which made it impossible to proceed.

The Employer opposed the adjournment and requested that the case be completed by written argument.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment but refused to adjourn the matter sine die, instead fixing a new hearing date to address the Employer's preliminary objections regarding res judicata and abuse of process.

The Union requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for August 21, 2009, sine die.

The Employer opposed the adjournment and argued the matter should be completed by written submissions.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment but not on a sine die basis, rescheduling the hearing to November 13, 2009.