Dan Palayew

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code but failed to attend the scheduled teleconference summary hearing.

After waiting the standard 30 minutes, the Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The employer and the union signed a pay equity plan in 2006 that tied the wages of female-dominated library job classes to male-dominated job classes in a separate municipal bargaining unit.

Subsequent interest arbitration awards for the municipal unit created a wage gap between the library employees and their comparators.

The employer argued that the pay equity plan capped retroactive adjustments and that any wage gap was permitted under the 'bargaining strength' exception in subsection 8(2) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that the pay equity plan did not cap adjustments and that the employer failed to prove the wage gap resulted from differences in bargaining strength.

The employer was ordered to pay the corresponding percentage wage increases to the female job classes.

The applicant student group filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent university discriminated against three of its members on the basis of ancestry, ethnic origin, and place of origin.

The dispute arose after the university removed and refused to approve the posting of a controversial political poster promoting 'Israeli Apartheid Week', and subsequently sent a campus-wide email regarding human rights and civil discourse.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the university's actions were motivated by genuine, good faith concerns about student safety and escalating campus tensions following an unprecedented number of hate-related incidents, rather than any discriminatory animus against Palestinians or their supporters.

The applicant, a resident of Manitoba employed by a federal government agency in Winnipeg, filed an application alleging discrimination based on family status.

She alleged that an Ontario-based independent contractor provided discriminatory advice to her manager, leading to her termination.

The respondents requested early dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the employment did not have a sufficient connection to Ontario, as the employer's place of business, the applicant's residence, and her usual place of employment were all outside the province.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the termination of the grievor's employment, the union alleged the employer failed to provide particulars during the grievance procedure and sought to have the grievance allowed on that basis.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered a timetable for the exchange of full written particulars and production of documents between the parties prior to the hearing on the merits, deferring the determination of the consequence of any prior failure to provide particulars.

The grievor, a liquor store manager, was previously reinstated subject to strict terms akin to a last chance agreement.

He was discharged after arriving nearly two hours late for a shift on a busy holiday weekend and failing to notify management.

The union argued the lateness was innocent absenteeism caused by sedation from taking Tylenol for a recurrence of a back injury.

The arbitrator rejected this explanation, finding the grievor's testimony regarding the amount of Tylenol taken to be inconsistent and not credible, and noting that Tylenol does not cause sedation.

The arbitrator also found the grievor's failure to notify management unacceptable.

As the grievor's conduct was culpable and gave cause for discipline, the discharge was upheld under the terms of the prior reinstatement.

The grievor, a liquor store manager, was discharged after failing to open the store on time.

The union brought a motion arguing the discharge was void ab initio because the employer failed to provide union representation during a telephone call between the grievor and the District Manager, allegedly in violation of article 26.3 of the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the brief telephone call, in which the manager merely asked why the store was not open, was an administrative inquiry rather than an investigatory meeting that could result in discipline.

The grievor, a store manager with 23 years of service, was discharged for three incidents of misconduct: making inappropriate sexual comments to a casual employee, asking a casual employee to purchase marijuana during work hours, and consuming alcohol with a contractor's crew on company premises while on duty.

The union argued the discharge was void due to the employer's delay in confronting the grievor, but the arbitrator found no actual prejudice.

While the arbitrator found the grievor's conduct constituted serious culpable misconduct and noted his lack of true remorse, the penalty of discharge was deemed excessive because the grievor had not received the benefit of progressive discipline for these types of offences.

The grievor was reinstated subject to a lengthy suspension without pay and a strict two-year discipline-free condition.

During a grievance arbitration concerning the grievor's discharge for alleged sexual harassment and workplace alcohol consumption, the employer raised numerous objections to the grievor's testimony based on the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

The employer argued that the union failed to cross-examine employer witnesses on points the grievor later contradicted in his testimony.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the legal principles of the rule, noting that a cross-examiner must indicate an intention to challenge a witness's credibility.

The Vice-Chair ruled on 30 specific objections, excluding the grievor's testimony where the rule was violated and permitting it where the rule did not apply or the cross-examination was sufficient.

The union filed an application under section 114(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking a determination of the employee status of four lead hands.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application, arguing that the issue had been settled during collective bargaining and no 'question' had arisen within the meaning of the Act.

The Board agreed with the employer, finding that the union had explicitly agreed not to pursue the status issue until the next round of bargaining.

As the current collective agreement was still in operation and no significant changes to duties were alleged, the Board concluded that no question had arisen and dismissed the application.