5 total
Human rights application dismissed; employer reasonably accommodated learning disability but applicant remained incapable.
The applicant, who has a learning disability, alleged that the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) failed to accommodate her disability during the Bus Operator training program, improperly terminated her employment, and subjected her to a poisoned work environment.
The Tribunal found that the TTC made reasonable efforts to accommodate the applicant's learning needs once they were clearly communicated.
Relying on a vocational assessment, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant was incapable of performing the essential duties of a Bus Operator even with accommodation.
The Tribunal also found no evidence of a poisoned work environment and held that the TTC had no obligation to offer an alternative position to a job applicant who could not perform the job applied for.
The application was dismissed.
Board determined viva voce evidence was not required and reserved its decision.
Following a consultation, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that it did not require viva voce evidence to decide the application.
The Board indicated that a decision would be issued in due course.
Community-based mental health workers employed by a hospital are 'hospital employees' under the HLDAA.
The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether employees of the Program of Assertive Community Treatment (PACT) at Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital are 'hospital employees' under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA).
The employer argued that PACT employees, who provide community-based mental health services, are not engaged in the operation of a hospital.
The Board found that PACT Halton is an extension of the hospital, providing treatment and medical monitoring to clients with severe mental illness.
Consequently, the Board advised the Minister that the PACT employees are 'hospital employees' within the meaning of the HLDAA.
Union certification granted; soil preparation business is a commercial enterprise, not exempt as agriculture or horticulture.
The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's soil preparation business.
The parties disputed whether part-time employees should be excluded from the unit and whether the respondent's operation was excluded from the Labour Relations Act as an agricultural or horticultural enterprise under sections 2(b) or 2(c).
The Board found that the respondent had an established practice of hiring part-time employees during its peak season, warranting their exclusion from the bargaining unit.
Furthermore, the Board determined that the respondent's business of processing natural products into soil for the home garden market was a commercial enterprise, not agriculture or horticulture.
The Board directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.
Board grants municipal-wide bargaining unit for cleaning contractor and dismisses employer's intimidation allegations.
The applicant union applied for certification for employees of the respondent cleaning contractor.
The employer argued that the bargaining unit should be limited to a specific street location, while the union sought a municipal-wide unit.
The Board applied its usual practice and granted a municipal-wide unit, finding no compelling reason to depart from it despite the employer being in the contract cleaning industry.
The Board also dismissed the employer's allegations that the union intimidated employees or misrepresented job security, finding no prima facie case of a section 70 violation.
A certificate was issued to the applicant.
