Fred Bickford

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to add E&E Seegmiller Limited and Les Coulas as respondents and to amend her Application alleging sexual harassment and reprisal.

The Tribunal noted that Les Coulas was already named as a personal respondent.

Applying the Smyth test, the Tribunal added E&E Seegmiller Limited as a corporate respondent because it was the employer of Les Coulas.

The Tribunal also permitted the applicant to amend her Application, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

The complainant, aged 57, alleged age discrimination after being unsuccessful in a competition for a tenure-track assistant professor position.

The Tribunal found that age was not a factor in the hiring decision, as the successful candidate was preferred due to superior teaching and current research.

However, the Tribunal found that the respondent university and its Dean failed to adequately investigate allegations of age discrimination raised by a dissenting member of the hiring committee, thereby violating the Human Rights Code.

In an ongoing human rights complaint alleging age discrimination in a university hiring process, the Commission requested further particulars and production of documents midway through the hearing.

The requested documents included faculty turnover rates, staffing complement, other competition processes, post-hiring evaluations of the successful candidate, and submissions to the Maclean's university survey.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests, finding that the documents were either not arguably relevant to the issues in dispute or that the request was made too late without explanation.

The Tribunal also declined to require that notice of a summons be given to a witness under section 11(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, directing instead that the summoned documents be produced to counsel.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board addressed preliminary matters in a Ministerial reference regarding the appointment of a conciliation officer and a related unfair labour practice application alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation.

The Board consolidated the matters on consent, directed the applicants to serve a proper Notice of Constitutional Question, and deferred a ruling on an intervenor's standing.

To expedite the proceedings, the Board directed the parties to provide legal argument and identify proposed evidence on whether a trade union may unilaterally abandon its bargaining rights and the implications of such abandonment.

The applicant Millwrights filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of work involving the removal and installation of kiln chains at a paper mill.

The employer had assigned the work to a 50-50 composite crew of ironworkers and millwrights.

The Ironworkers claimed exclusive jurisdiction over the work.

The Board found that the area practice was mixed and that the employer's assignment to a composite crew was proper, directing the employer to continue assigning the work on that basis in the relevant geographic areas.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer terminated two maintenance employees and contracted out their work because the union claimed they were part of the bargaining unit.

The employer argued the decision was made for economic reasons prior to the union's claim.

The Board found that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving the decision was free from anti-union animus, noting the timing of the terminations and the lack of evidence supporting a prior final decision to contract out.

The Board ordered the employees reinstated with compensation.

One Board member dissented.

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints and an application for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

The Board found that the employer breached the statutory freeze provision by cancelling a long-standing annual Christmas bonus.

The Board also found that the employer's communications to employees, including a letter from the partners and comments by management, constituted unlawful interference, intimidation, and coercion.

Finally, the Board concluded that the employer failed to make reasonable efforts to conclude a collective agreement, took uncompromising positions without reasonable justification, and refused to recognize the union's bargaining authority.

The Board directed that the first collective agreement be settled by arbitration and dismissed a related termination application.

The union filed an application seeking a declaration that the Crown was the employer of its members working at Family and Children's Services for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act.

The Crown raised a preliminary objection, arguing that subsection 1.1 of the Act prevented the Tribunal from finding the Crown to be the employer.

The Tribunal held that the exception in subsection 1.1(4)(b) applied because the issue of the Crown's status as employer had been raised in a previous application filed before December 18, 1991.

The preliminary objection was dismissed and the union's application was permitted to proceed.

One member dissented.

The applicant union sought interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, requesting an order that the responding party employer re-open a logging camp that had recently been closed.

The union alleged the employer failed to disclose the impending closure during collective bargaining.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the balance of harm strongly favoured the employer.

The harm alleged by the union was primarily financial and could be remedied if the main application succeeded.

Furthermore, the union failed to act promptly, waiting until after the camp had closed and equipment had been moved before filing the application.

The employer applied for a declaration of an unlawful strike after the union refused to sign a collective agreement reflecting a final offer that had been accepted in a section 40 vote.

The union argued the bargaining unit only covered marine operations, not woods operations, and challenged the eligibility of several voters.

The Board found that the bargaining unit included both operations and determined the eligibility of disputed voters, concluding the final offer was accepted.

The Board held that the union breached its duty to bargain in good faith by refusing to execute the agreement, but declined to declare the strike unlawful, instead directing the union to sign the agreement.

The union applied for a declaration that Current River Foods Ltd. was a successor employer to Canada Safeway Limited under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, following the transfer of a retail food store lease and the sale of fixtures and inventory.

The employer argued it had merely acquired idle assets to start a new, distinct business.

The Board applied the 'Dutch Boy' line of cases, emphasizing the importance of location in the retail food industry.

The Board found that the employer's acquisition of the premises, fixtures, and inventory, and its efforts to retain the existing customer base, constituted a sale of part of Safeway's business.

The employer was declared bound by the existing collective agreement.