Eric DelJunco

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a supplementary decision to update its previous decisions regarding systemic issues at the Toronto Jail.

The Board amended action plans and objectives, including scheduling Coordinating Committee meetings, clarifying staff rights to report wrongdoing under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006, and addressing racism and discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Vice-Chair remained seized with respect to the interpretation or implementation of the decision.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural decision on consent to suspend the investigation of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy (WDHP) complaints filed by various grievors, as the substance of those complaints would be addressed within the grievances before the Board.

The Employer was directed to notify investigators and provide details of the affected complaints.

The Board also assigned additional hearing dates for specific grievors.

During a pre-hearing conference call, the complainant requested an order requiring the Commission to clarify its intentions regarding its participation in the hearing and to provide her with legal counsel.

The Tribunal declined to hear oral submissions on the issue during the call, finding it procedurally unfair without full preparation.

The Tribunal ordered the Commission to advise by November 21, 2008, whether its position on participation had changed, and directed the complainant to file a formal request for an order with written submissions if she wished to pursue the matter further.

In a mediation-arbitration process concerning systemic issues of racism, discrimination, and harassment at the Toronto Jail, the Grievance Settlement Board directed the union and the employer to commit to a comprehensive set of objectives and action plans.

These directives aim to foster a fair, respectful, and inclusive work environment, addressing areas such as union-management collaboration, workplace hospitality, handling of hate mail, recruitment and promotion, orientation and training, operations, and conflict resolution.

The complainants, two transsexual women, alleged discrimination in services on the basis of sex after a plastic surgeon refused to perform cosmetic surgeries on them.

The surgeon, who specialized in genital and breast surgeries for non-transsexual patients, determined he was not qualified to perform the requested procedures on transsexual patients due to anatomical differences and the need for a specialized team approach.

The Tribunal found that while the refusal constituted prima facie discrimination, the respondents established a bona fide justification.

The Tribunal held that the duty to accommodate does not require an individual medical professional to obtain significant new qualifications or substantially change their practice, as this would constitute undue hardship.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested an extension of time to file a revised hearing brief, citing a busy hearing schedule and the laborious nature of the task.

The respondents consented on the condition of equivalent extensions, but the complainant opposed the request because her counsel was starting a new position and would be unable to assist if the extension were granted.

The Tribunal denied the extension, finding that it would cause prejudice to the complainant and noting that the need for revised pleadings arose from the Commission's failure to follow the Rules.

The respondents brought a motion arguing that the Ontario Human Rights Commission's disclosure and hearing brief did not comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The Tribunal found that the Commission's disclosure, consisting of over 2,000 unorganized pages, and its hearing brief, which relied on references to other documents rather than stating material facts, were deficient.

The Tribunal ordered the Commission to re-submit its disclosure in chronological order with an index and to file a new hearing brief that complies with Rule 57.

The City of Hamilton brought applications under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 following the amalgamation of various local authorities.

During a consultation, the parties reached agreements to exclude certain bargaining units, including those related to HECFI and specific lodges, from the proceedings.

The Board recorded these agreements, released UFCW and IATSE from the applications, and issued directions for the filing of proposals and scheduling of further consultation dates to determine the remaining bargaining unit configurations.

The applicant employer sought declarations and directions regarding alleged unlawful strike activity.

Employees at the employer's Tillsonburg plant were engaged in a lawful strike and picketed the employer's London plant, where employees were not in a lawful strike position.

Employees at the London plant refused to cross the picket line.

The Board held that while the picketing itself was protected as an act in connection with a lawful strike under section 83(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the refusal to work by the London employees constituted an unlawful strike.

The Board declared that the union called or authorized the unlawful strike and that union officials counselled or encouraged it, and issued cease and desist directions.

The applicant employer sought declarations and directions regarding alleged unlawful strike activity and picketing by the responding union and its members.

Employees at one plant were engaged in a lawful strike and picketed other plants of the employer.

Employees at the other plants refused to cross the picket lines.

The Board found that the refusal to cross the picket lines constituted an unlawful strike, which was authorized and encouraged by the union and its officials.

The Board issued cease and desist orders, while reserving its decision on the lawfulness of the picketing itself.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint after losing a representation vote.

The employer failed to appear at the hearing.

The Board heard evidence that the employer's plant manager and a labour relations consultant threatened employees with job losses, wage reductions, and plant closure if the union was certified.

The Board found the employer violated sections 70, 72, and 76 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board granted remedial certification under section 11 and ordered the reinstatement of an inside organizer who had resigned under the reasonable belief that he would be fired for his union activities.

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging the employer engaged in bad faith bargaining during a lengthy strike.

The employer refused to meet with the union for over three months despite repeated requests, citing picket line issues and production demands.

When the employer finally tabled a proposal, it contained significant concessions that undermined seniority and union protections.

The Board found the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith by failing to meet and by tabling a proposal designed for rejection.

The Board directed the parties to return to bargaining forthwith.

The applicants sought to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding trade union.

A representation vote was held, resulting in a narrow majority in favour of the union retaining its bargaining rights.

Following the vote, several employees alleged that a vocal union supporter had uttered threats and intimidated employees in the days leading up to the vote, and requested a new vote.

The Board held a hearing to assess the allegations.

Finding the evidence of the employees to be fragmentary, internally inconsistent, and influenced by the highly partisan atmosphere of the decertification campaign, the Board preferred the union supporter's denial.

The Board concluded that the allegations of threats were not established and dismissed the application to annul the vote.

The applicant union filed a complaint alleging the school board contravened the strike replacement provisions of the Labour Relations Act by planning to use regular teachers to perform the work of occasional teachers during a threatened strike.

The strike was averted when a collective agreement was reached.

The school board argued the complaint was moot and requested the Board decline to inquire into it.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, exercising its discretion under section 91 of the Act to refuse to render an advisory opinion on a hypothetical scenario where the concrete dispute had disappeared.

The applicant trade union sought a declaration that it was the successor trade union to an association.

The responding party employer argued the association was not a "trade union" under the Labour Relations Act because it permitted managerial employees to be members.

The Board held that the admission of non-employees into membership does not preclude an organization from being considered a trade union under the Act.

The Board directed the parties to a pre-hearing conference to resolve remaining issues.

The applicant trade union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer's reorganization of its workforce shortly after certification breached the Labour Relations Act.

The employer raised several preliminary procedural issues, seeking an adjournment pending a section 108(2) employee status determination, dismissal for lack of a prima facie case, dismissal for want of particulars, and an order that the union proceed first with its evidence.

The Board dismissed the motions for adjournment, lack of a prima facie case, and want of particulars.

A majority of the Board ordered the employer to proceed first with its evidence, finding that the core allegations attracted the reverse onus provisions of section 91(5) and that the employer had peculiar knowledge of the circumstances.

The Board heard procedural matters regarding multiple certification applications filed by construction trade unions (Carpenters, Labourers, Painters) and the RWDSU for employees of Guillot Builders Limited.

The Board ruled that the standard craft bargaining units were appropriate, denying RWDSU's request for an all-employee unit or to amend its applications to seek craft units.

RWDSU's applications were deferred pending the resolution of the craft unions' applications.

The Board also denied an adjournment request from an employee objector seeking to retain counsel, and set out the procedure and order of evidence for the remaining issues to be heard.

The applicant employee filed an application for termination of bargaining rights (decertification) against the respondent union.

The Board found that the petition did not express the voluntary wishes of the employees, as the applicant was closely associated with another employee who was perceived as linked to management, and the employer had previously demonstrated anti-union animus by allowing anti-union notices to remain posted and failing to discipline employees who engaged in an anti-union strike.

The application was dismissed, with one Board member dissenting.

The applicant union filed an application for certification after having previously filed and withdrawn two similar applications before the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the Canada Labour Relations Board.

The respondent employer argued that the Board should decline to entertain the new application under section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act, alleging a possibility of manipulation regarding membership evidence.

The Board found no abuse of process, noting that the membership evidence relied upon was obtained before any possibility of manipulation arose.

The Board declined to refuse to entertain the application and, based on the parties' agreement and the membership evidence, granted the certification.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union in 1984 regarding events from 1983.

After initial proceedings and adjournments in 1985, the complainant took no further steps for almost two years.

The respondent union requested that the complaint be dismissed for delay.

The Board declined to entertain the complaint due to the extreme and unexplained delay of almost two years since the last proceeding, bringing the total time elapsed since the events to almost four years.