Bernie Hanson

The applicant, a former teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the school board and her union.

The allegations against the school board related to events between 2009 and 2012, but the application was not filed until July 2014.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the school board for delay, finding the applicant failed to establish a good faith explanation for missing the one-year limitation period.

The allegations against the union for failing to represent her on harassment claims were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence the union's decision was based on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct against the respondent member.

The parties agreed to the withdrawal in exchange for the member's undertaking to resign immediately, never seek reinstatement, and never teach again in Ontario.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the withdrawal of the Notice of Hearing in exchange for the undertaking was reasonable and served to protect the public interest.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination, which was deferred pending the completion of a union grievance process.

The union withdrew the grievance, but the applicant waited over seven months to request re-activation of his Tribunal application, well beyond the 60-day limit in the Tribunal's Rules.

The Tribunal found the delay unreasonable and dismissed the request to re-activate, thereby dismissing the application.

The complainant, an occasional supply teacher, alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to file grievances regarding his failure to obtain a permanent teaching position, his lack of access to his complete personnel file, and his failure to obtain teaching assignments after June 1986.

He also alleged that the union violated section 72(5) and (6) by providing insufficient notice of a general meeting.

The Board dismissed the complaints, finding that the collective agreement did not provide rights to permanent employment or complete personnel file access, and that the union's handling of his lack of assignments was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The Board also found no violation regarding the meeting notice.

The applicant sought a declaration terminating the respondent union's bargaining rights.

Although 15 of 30 employees initially signed a petition against the union, two subsequently signed a counterpetition reaffirming their support before the assessment date.

The Board held that it must consider the last voluntary signification of wishes as of the assessment date.

Consequently, the applicant failed to demonstrate that at least 45 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit no longer wished to be represented by the union.

The application was dismissed, with one Board Member dissenting.

The applicant union alleged that the appointment of a court-appointed receiver and manager of a nursing home constituted a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, making the receiver and the secured creditor successor employers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that a receiver and manager merely acts as an officer of the court to manage the business on behalf of creditors, and no disposition or transfer of the business occurred until the assets were subsequently sold to a third-party purchaser.

The union brought an application under section 63 and a complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act against two banks and their privately appointed receivers following the insolvency of Windsor Packing Company Limited.

The union argued that the receivers were successor employers and were liable for unpaid union dues and other collective agreement obligations.

The Board held that the private appointment of a receiver-manager does not constitute a sale or transfer of a business under section 63.

However, the Board found that the receiver, acting as an agent of the insolvent company, violated section 64 by failing to deduct and remit union dues and ignoring the collective agreement while employing bargaining unit members to wind down operations.

The receiver was ordered to pay the union dues for the period it acted as the employer.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union after the grievance committee withdrew his grievance, which had been posted to arbitration, without allowing him an appeal.

The union had withdrawn the grievance as part of a backlog clearance following contract negotiations, determining it could not succeed at arbitration.

The Board found that the union's internal appeal procedures did not extend to decisions made after a grievance was posted to arbitration.

As the union retained the prerogative to withdraw the grievance and did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith, the complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union filed an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act alleging a sale of a business by Chateau Gardens to the respondents, a court-appointed receiver and a secured creditor.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant had not obtained leave of the Supreme Court of Ontario, as required by the receiving order.

The Board held that it had exclusive jurisdiction under sections 106(1) and 108 of the Act, and that requiring leave of the court would constitute an impermissible questioning or restraining of the Board's proceedings.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection and directed the matter to be listed for a hearing on the merits.