6 total
Leave to withdraw complaints granted after individual applicant conceded union's authority to settle.
The employer and the union sought leave to withdraw two complaints on the basis that they had been resolved as part of a collective agreement settlement.
The individual applicant, Francis Naraine, initially opposed the withdrawal.
At the hearing, Naraine's representative conceded that the union had the authority to settle the complaint on his behalf.
The Board granted leave to withdraw the complaints, noting that if Naraine wished to pursue allegations that the union breached its duty of fair representation, he must file a separate complaint under section 96 of the Act.
Adjournment granted due to illness of applicant's counsel.
An individual applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing because his counsel was ill and could not attend.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the adjournment on the applicant's representation and directed his counsel to provide a letter explaining the absence.
The Registrar was directed to schedule a new hearing date.
Board finds two distinct bargaining units exist for full-time and part-time employees in displacement application.
In a displacement application for certification, the applicant union sought to represent employees in a single bargaining unit combining full-time and part-time employees.
The responding employer and intervenor union argued that two distinct bargaining units existed.
The Board reviewed the collective agreement and its administration, noting two distinct recognition clauses and separate seniority provisions.
The Board concluded that there were two separate bargaining units and directed the parties to file written submissions on the applicant's alternative positions.
Motion to defer setting hearing dates pending appeals in similar cases dismissed due to public interest.
The respondent employer brought a motion to defer setting hearing dates until the Divisional Court and Court of Appeal decided pending appeals in other cases raising similar issues regarding the exclusion of women on maternity leave from short-term disability benefits.
The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that its public interest mandate under the Human Rights Code required it to expeditiously decide the issues before it, and that deferring the hearing could result in years of delay.
Tribunal ruled gender dominance of job class not properly before it due to prior agreement.
The parties sought preliminary rulings on whether the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal had jurisdiction to inquire into the gender dominance of the Material Handler job class and to hear evidence regarding the CAW-Canada Gender Neutral Comparison System.
The Tribunal held that the gender dominance of the Material Handler job class was not properly before it, as the employer was bound by its prior agreement on the issue during negotiations.
The Tribunal declined to rule prematurely on the admissibility of evidence regarding the comparison system.
Lead hands, linemen, and senior deburrers included in bargaining unit as they do not exercise managerial functions.
In a union certification application, the parties disputed whether lead hands, linemen, and senior deburrers should be excluded from the bargaining unit.
The employer failed to file particulars, so the Board proceeded based on the union's statement of facts.
The Board found that the disputed employees did not exercise managerial functions under section 1(3) of the Labour Relations Act, as their involvement in discipline and scheduling was limited and infrequent.
The Board also rejected the argument that they lacked a community of interest with the rest of the bargaining unit, noting that minor differences in working conditions do not create serious labour relations problems.
A final certificate was issued to the union.
