Kees Kort

The applicant filed an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board against the responding party union, with the employer hospital intervening.

The parties concluded a Memorandum of Agreement resolving the matters between them.

By consent, the Board granted leave for the application to be withdrawn.

Following the amalgamation of three municipalities into Loyalist Township, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit structure under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The employer and the dominant trade union, CUPE, argued for two separate units for full-time and part-time employees, reflecting the historical status quo.

SEIU argued for a single all-employee unit.

The Board ordered two separate bargaining units, finding that maintaining the historical separation of full-time and part-time employees best served the purposes of the Act.

The applicant union brought an application under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act concerning the rationalization of rehabilitation services among three hospitals.

The rationalization involved transferring services and employees to a consolidated centre at the responding party hospital, constituting a sale of a business.

The primary issue was whether the seniority of incoming employees should be dovetailed or end-tailed into the existing bargaining unit's seniority list.

The Board found that an intermingling of employees had occurred despite the physical transfers not yet being complete.

The Board ordered that the seniority lists be dovetailed, recognizing the incoming employees' accrued seniority in full, as it provided the most equitable reconciliation of interests and facilitated the rationalization process.

The applicant union alleged that the employer hospital violated the statutory freeze period under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act and the Labour Relations Act.

The employer had granted non-bargaining unit staff an extra week of vacation in exchange for a zero percent wage increase, but refused to grant the extra vacation to bargaining unit members unless they also agreed to the wage freeze, despite pending interest arbitration.

The Board found that the bargaining unit employees had a reasonable expectation to receive the same vacation benefit as non-union staff based on past practice.

The Board directed the employer to grant the bargaining unit employees the same compensation package granted to non-bargaining unit employees.

The union applied to the Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's order on a pay equity dispute.

The parties disagreed on whether they had previously reached a binding agreement on job evaluation weightings and point totals.

The Tribunal found that the agreement on weightings was binding as it had been ratified by the employer's Board of Trustees, but the point totals were not binding as they had not been ratified.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to determine the final point totals for the disputed job classes before it would decide the issue of comparability.