6 total
Human rights application dismissed as untimely; estate failed to establish good faith reason for delay.
The applicant estate filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability more than two years after the deceased employee resigned and subsequently committed suicide.
The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application was timely.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had sufficient information within the one-year limitation period to file an application, as evidenced by communications with a former colleague and the filing of a WSIB claim based on similar allegations.
The Tribunal concluded that the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application as untimely.
Motion to add successor corporations as respondents partially dismissed; further evidence required for remaining proposed respondents.
The applicant sought to add Southwire Canada Company, Gentoma Company, and Gentek Inc. as respondents to his human rights complaint, arguing they were successor corporations to his former employer, Noma Cable Tech Ltd. The Tribunal declined to add Southwire, finding it was a complete stranger to the complaint and had purchased assets months after the applicant's termination.
Regarding Gentoma and Gentek, the Tribunal ordered them to provide affidavits detailing their legal relationships with Noma Cable before deciding whether they should be added.
Unfair labour practice complaint dismissed; employer proved discipline was for bona fide business reasons.
The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by demoting and disciplining an employee due to his involvement in a union organizing drive.
The employer maintained that the discipline was imposed for bona fide business reasons, specifically the employee's history of inappropriate conduct towards truck drivers and causing delivery delays.
The Board dismissed the application, finding that the employer had discharged its burden of proving that its actions were free of anti-union animus and were instead based on legitimate business concerns regarding the employee's behaviour.
Union certified without vote; anti-union petition rejected due to management-linked involvement and evidentiary deficiencies.
The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's wholesale food business.
The union filed documentary evidence of membership for more than 55% of the employees.
A group of objecting employees filed a petition opposing certification, which included signatures from employees who had previously signed union cards.
The Board denied the objectors' request for an indefinite adjournment due to the medical unavailability of their principal witness, noting the prejudicial delay it would cause.
The Board found the petition unreliable because it was circulated with the active involvement of the owner's brother and was not supported by cross-examined testimony.
The Board also determined that two disputed employees did not exercise managerial functions.
The Board granted the union's application for certification without a representation vote.
Reconsideration of decision denying intervenor status to pay equity consultant dismissed.
Peat Marwick requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision denying it intervenor status in a pay equity dispute between the Ontario Nurses' Association and Women's College Hospital.
The Tribunal held that its discretion to reconsider decisions under s. 30(2) of the Pay Equity Act should only be exercised in compelling and extraordinary circumstances to preserve the finality of decisions.
Finding no new evidence, change in circumstances, or error of law, the majority dismissed the request.
One member dissented, finding that the consolidation of multiple similar applications constituted a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant reconsideration.
Tribunal denies intervenor status to job evaluation system creator in pay equity dispute.
The Ontario Nurses' Association and Women's College Hospital filed cross-applications regarding the negotiation of a pay equity plan and the gender neutrality of the proposed job evaluation system.
Stevenson, Kellogg, Ernst & Whinney (SKEW), the creator of the job evaluation system, sought intervenor status, arguing its commercial interests and reputation could be adversely affected.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal denied the intervention, finding that SKEW's interest was merely commercial and incidental to the main issue between the employer and the union.
The Tribunal also confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the complaints.
