Barbara G. Humphrey

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the employer bargained in bad faith and engaged in an unlawful lockout when it closed its restaurant operation.

The employer had sought significant monetary concessions due to mounting financial losses, which the union repeatedly rejected.

After the employer implemented a lockout, it learned the union wanted to continue negotiating but decided to permanently close the business.

The Board dismissed the complaints, finding that the employer bargained in good faith and that the lockout and subsequent closure were motivated by legitimate financial concerns rather than anti-union animus.

The Board also held that the employer's final offer did not remain open for acceptance after the business closed.

The Board of Inquiry issued a supplementary decision regarding whether costs should be awarded against the Ontario Human Rights Commission after dismissing a complaint found to have been made in bad faith.

The Board held that under section 40(6) of the Human Rights Code, costs may be awarded if a complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith, and the Commission was aware or should have been aware of this fact.

The Board found that the Commission conducted a reasonable investigation and could not have known of the complainant's bad faith until the hearing.

The request for costs was dismissed.

Two employees filed human rights complaints alleging racial discrimination and harassment.

One complainant was subjected to racial slurs and physical assaults by a co-worker.

The Board found the co-worker personally liable for racial harassment but dismissed the complaint against the employer, finding the employer did not condone the conduct and had disciplined the co-worker.

The second complainant, a union steward, alleged his termination was racially motivated.

The Board dismissed this complaint, finding the termination was based on the employer's belief that the complainant had counselled a work slow-down and his history of disruptive behaviour, rather than any racial motivation.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties disputed the bargaining unit description, specifically whether students employed in a co-operative training program should be excluded from the full-time unit.

The Board reviewed its practice of excluding such students due to their lack of long-term commitment and different terms and conditions of employment compared to permanent full-time employees.

The Board concluded that the student in question lacked a community of interest with the full-time employees and ordered that students in co-operative training programs be excluded from the bargaining unit.

A Board Officer was appointed to inquire into the duties of a disputed supervisory position.