Kathleen Martin

The Association moved to adjourn the grievance hearing sine die pending reconsideration of the grievor's pension issue by the Ontario Pension Board (OPB).

The grievance alleged improper calculation of the grievor's continuous service date and failure to recognize service for pension purposes.

The Employer opposed the adjournment, arguing the GSB had jurisdiction over the continuous service date issue regardless of the OPB's decision.

The Vice-Chair denied the motion to adjourn, finding that the OPB's determination would not resolve the primary issue of interpreting the collective agreement, and that proceeding with the delayed matter served a significant labour relations purpose.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the responding party union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant complained about events from 1997 and 1998, including the combination of her job with another position, lack of forklift training, and her subsequent retirement.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for undue delay and failure to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the application on the ground of undue delay, finding the 19-month delay to be prejudicial and inadequately explained.

The Board also noted that, even if not dismissed for delay, the application would be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case, as the applicant never requested the union to file a grievance or take specific action.

The applicant union brought an application for a related employer declaration and a grievance referral against the responding parties.

The responding parties failed to attend the hearing.

The Board found that the responding parties operated under common control and direction and declared them to be one employer bound by the collective agreement.

The Board also found that the responding parties violated the subcontracting provisions of the collective agreement and ordered them to pay $28,388.51 in damages for unpaid wages and contributions.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union for refusing to participate in an application for judicial review of an arbitration decision that upheld his discharge.

The responding party and intervenor brought preliminary motions to dismiss the complaint for undue delay.

The Board found that the applicant had delayed for several years without a satisfactory explanation, including failing to take reasonable steps to have the matter relisted after sine die adjournments.

Given the prejudice to the parties and the potential disruption to established seniority rights, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to inquire into the complaint and dismissed the application.

The appellants were former employees of a bankrupt shoe retailer.

Following the bankruptcy, the employees' employment was terminated.

The Ministry of Labour filed a proof of claim for termination and severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, which the Trustee disallowed on the basis that bankruptcy does not constitute termination 'by an employer'.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the words of an Act must be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.

The Court found that interpreting the ESA to exclude bankrupt employers would lead to absurd results and defeat the remedial purpose of the legislation.

The applicant union applied for certification of a new bargaining unit of continuing education instructors and sought to combine it with an existing unit that had not yet reached a first collective agreement.

The employer opposed the combination, arguing it would cause serious labour relations problems and instability.

The Board granted the combination, finding that the alternative of two small, fragmented units would be more problematic than integrating the new group into the ongoing first contract arbitration.

A dissenting board member would have refused the combination.

The applicant union filed a complaint alleging the school board contravened the strike replacement provisions of the Labour Relations Act by planning to use regular teachers to perform the work of occasional teachers during a threatened strike.

The strike was averted when a collective agreement was reached.

The school board argued the complaint was moot and requested the Board decline to inquire into it.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, exercising its discretion under section 91 of the Act to refuse to render an advisory opinion on a hypothetical scenario where the concrete dispute had disappeared.

The applicant union applied to combine two bargaining units it represented at the respondent newspaper: one consisting of editorial employees and another consisting of part-time mailroom employees.

The employer opposed the combination, arguing the units lacked a community of interest and that the combination would shift bargaining power and cause serious labour relations problems.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the application, finding that the combination would facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining, reduce fragmentation, and not cause serious labour relations problems.

The applicant union applied to combine a newly certified bargaining unit of editorial employees in Simcoe County with an existing bargaining unit of editorial employees.

The respondent employer argued that the Board should not remain seized of the matter or should freeze the terms and conditions of employment, to allow the parties to bargain without interference.

The Board rejected the employer's arguments, noting that the statute expressly confers remedial jurisdiction to resolve differences arising from a combination order.

The Board ordered the two bargaining units combined and remained seized to deal with any further remedial relief.

The applicant union alleged that the employer committed an unfair labour practice by denying recognition bonus payments to employees who participated in a lawful strike, while paying the bonus to employees who crossed the picket line.

The employer argued that the bonus was tied to production and was reduced for any absence, relying on its discretion under the plan.

The Board found that the employer had not uniformly applied the reduction to other absences, such as a subsequent sit-in by non-striking employees.

The Board concluded that the employer's exercise of discretion was motivated by anti-union animus and discriminated against the striking employees contrary to section 67(a) of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer was ordered to compensate the striking employees.

The Union alleged that the Employer failed to bargain in good faith during pay equity negotiations and brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the Employer's application regarding a Review Officer's order on gender dominance.

The Tribunal refused to dismiss the Employer's application for delay or abuse of process, finding that meaningful bargaining had occurred.

However, the Tribunal found that the Employer failed to bargain in good faith by continuing to negotiate as if it accepted the Review Officer's first order while secretly intending to appeal it, thereby misleading the Union.

The Tribunal reserved on the quantum of compensation for wasted time and expense in evaluating job classes.

The employer applied to the Tribunal seeking a prospective interpretation of the red-circling provisions under s. 8(1)(d) of the Pay Equity Act.

The union raised a preliminary objection that the employer had not made out a prima facie case and that the matter was not ripe for adjudication.

The Tribunal agreed with the union, finding that the application was premature because a sufficient factual basis was required to determine if the statutory requirements for red-circling were met.

The Tribunal declined to render a decision in the abstract.

The applicant trade union sought certification for a bargaining unit consisting of occasional teachers and supply instructors employed by the respondent school boards.

The Board considered whether supply instructors, who are unqualified persons appointed in emergencies, share a sufficient community of interest with occasional teachers to be included in the same unit.

Noting the evolution of collective bargaining practice and the functional similarities between the two groups, the Board found the proposed combined bargaining units to be appropriate and directed that certificates issue to the applicant.

The applicant union applied for certification.

During the hearing, the Board inquired into the reliability of the Form 9 Declaration concerning membership evidence.

The Board found that the Form 9 declarant failed to make the necessary inquiries of the collector to ensure that each applicant for membership had personally paid the required one dollar.

Because the Form 9 Declaration was deemed unreliable, the Board dismissed the application for certification.