Clifford Hart

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to apply a negotiated 2.9% general wage increase to the wait staff classification on January 1, 2019.

The parties had previously signed a memorandum of settlement providing for the increase, but the finalized collective agreement specified exact hourly rates.

Following a statutory increase in the minimum wage to $14.00, the wait staff rate fell below the minimum and was raised to $14.00 by operation of law.

The union argued the 2.9% increase should apply to the new $14.00 rate.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, holding that the explicit rates in the ratified collective agreement govern over the memorandum of settlement, and the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to award an increase not reflected in the collective agreement's wage schedule.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination, harassment, and failure to accommodate.

On the first day of the scheduled hearing, during a mediation-adjudication session, the applicant requested to withdraw her application.

The Tribunal granted the request to withdraw but, noting the significant public and private resources already expended, ordered that the withdrawal be with prejudice to the applicant's ability to file a new application regarding the same facts.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate his human rights application alleging disability discrimination, following the resolution of a related policy grievance.

The respondents opposed, noting that an individual grievance raising the same accommodation issues remained outstanding and was proceeding through the grievance steps.

The Tribunal found that given the parallel issues, the application should continue to be deferred pending the conclusion of the individual grievance or arbitration process.

The applicant, a unionized employee with psoriatic arthritis and a workplace foot injury, alleged that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of disability.

She claimed the employer failed to properly accommodate her when it assigned her to modified work inspecting parts in an office area, citing issues with her workspace, work supply, and communication.

She also alleged that a non-disciplinary warning letter regarding her absenteeism was discriminatory.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the employer had provided reasonable accommodation within her medical restrictions and that the attendance letter, which sought to address overall absenteeism while she was being accommodated, did not violate the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability against her employer and her union.

The union respondents requested summary dismissal on the basis that the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The employer requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing a prior grievance settlement dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union respondents, finding no facts were alleged linking their representation to a Code ground.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application against the employer, as the grievance settlement only covered a portion of the time period during which the applicant alleged discrimination.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a summary hearing scheduled for December 16, 2015, to seek adequate representation.

The request was filed one week prior to the hearing, outside the 14-day period required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that seeking additional time to retain a new representative late in the process did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment.

At a summary hearing, the respondent challenged the applicant's use of an unlicensed representative.

The representative claimed the 'friend or neighbour' exemption under Law Society By-law 4, which allows unlicensed persons to provide legal services in no more than three matters per year.

The Tribunal found that the representative was providing legal services in at least four matters in 2015, including other tribunal and labour board applications.

Consequently, the representative was not permitted to appear before the Tribunal and was removed from the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and reprisal.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several procedural issues.

The Tribunal amended the respondent's name to FCA Canada Inc., found the issue of deferral moot as the related union grievance was withdrawn, denied the applicant's request to add eleven individuals as personal respondents because there was no compelling reason to do so, and denied the request for early document production as premature.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because some of his witnesses would be out of town for the Thanksgiving holiday.

The respondents objected.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no exceptional circumstances.

The respondents requested the removal of a personal respondent, which the Tribunal denied as premature given that her conduct was a central issue.

The applicant also requested production of documents, which the Tribunal denied as overly broad and a fishing expedition.

The applicant, an employee on inactive status due to disability, alleged discrimination and reprisal against his employer and union.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the reprisal claim regarding the denial of funding for a residential treatment program, finding no evidence linking the denial to the applicant's previous human rights applications.

The Tribunal also dismissed the age discrimination claim regarding health care contributions, as section 15 of the Code permits preferential treatment for persons aged 65 or older.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the claim that denying a signing bonus to an employee not actively working due to disability was discriminatory, as the compensation scheme treated all non-working employees equally.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a grievance regarding the grievor's removal from a Painter 2 position, arguing it was filed outside the collective agreement's time limits.

The Union conceded the grievance was untimely but argued the Employer was estopped from relying on the time limits due to past practice, or alternatively, that the arbitrator should exercise discretion under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time.

The arbitrator found no clear representation by the Employer to support estoppel.

Applying the factors for extending time limits, the arbitrator concluded the delay was excessive, the Employer was not forewarned, and the Union failed to provide a justifiable explanation.

The preliminary motion was upheld and the grievance dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against her employer and her union.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the allegations against the union had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged that the union failed to inform her of decisions, provided misleading information, delayed accommodation, and failed to inform her of union meetings.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the union's actions or inactions to her disability, or showing that the union participated in a discriminatory rule or impeded the employer's accommodation efforts.

The application against the union was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the receipt of her WSIB file.

The respondent consented to the re-activation on the condition that it be allowed 35 days to file a Response.

The Tribunal ordered the application re-activated and granted the respondent 35 days to file its Response.

The applicant alleged that his employer and union failed to accommodate his disability following a heart attack, and that the union discriminated against him in a job competition.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the allegations relating to October 2010 had already been dealt with in a previous application and were barred by section 45.1 of the Code and the doctrine of abuse of process.

For the remaining allegations, the Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success, as the medical documentation indicated the applicant was totally disabled and unable to work, making accommodation impossible.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The employer raised a preliminary objection arguing that the union was improperly attempting to expand the scope of a policy grievance regarding a job posting.

The union initially argued that the grievor should have been awarded the position based on seniority, but later sought to argue in the alternative that the employer exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the employer's objection, finding that the union was still relying on the same collective agreement provision and that the alternative argument was inherent in the proper interpretation and application of that provision.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application regarding a modified work program to include allegations about events prior to October 2008 and after October 2009.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to raise allegations from February 2008 onwards, finding they constituted a series of events under section 34 of the Code.

The Tribunal also allowed the amendment for the period from October 2009 to September 2011, as the new allegations were factually connected to the original application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically challenging the employer's Modified Work Program which subjected him to temporary layoffs due to his permanent medical restrictions.

The respondents requested particulars and sought to dismiss allegations relating to periods before October 2008 due to delay.

The Tribunal dismissed allegations prior to March 2007 for delay, finding no series of incidents connecting them to later events and no good faith explanation for the delay.

The applicant was ordered to provide a detailed chronology and particulars for the period from March 2007 to October 2009.

The applicant's request for further disclosure of documents was dismissed.

The applicant sought to file a human rights application regarding his dismissal from employment in 1976, over 30 years after the incident.

The Tribunal considered whether to exercise its discretion under s. 34(2) of the Human Rights Code to accept the late application.

The applicant argued that new evidence and his medical conditions justified the delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for why the evidence could not have been obtained earlier or why his disabilities prevented him from pursuing his Code rights in a timely manner, especially given his pursuit of other legal remedies.

The Tribunal inferred substantial prejudice to the respondent due to the extreme delay and dismissed the application.

The grievor, a banquet server with 22 years of service, was terminated for making a threatening and violent comment in an application to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and for unacceptable conduct during an investigation meeting.

The union grieved the termination.

During the arbitration, the employer brought a preliminary motion arguing that the employment relationship was irrevocably severed and that damages should be awarded in lieu of reinstatement, even if just cause for discharge was not found.

The arbitrator agreed, finding the grievor lacked insight into his actions and posed a risk to the workplace.

The arbitrator awarded $30,000 in damages in lieu of reinstatement.