3 total
Human rights application against union dismissed as out of time and lacking reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant, a constituency assistant, was dismissed after his spouse was elected as the MPP for the riding, pursuant to a rule prohibiting MPPs from employing their spouses.
He filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status against his union for failing to grieve his dismissal.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding that the allegations regarding the 2011 dismissal were filed outside the one-year time limit.
Furthermore, the Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success, as the union's decision not to grieve was based on legal advice regarding the interaction of the collective agreement and the spousal employment prohibition, which is consistent with section 24(1)(d) of the Human Rights Code.
Human rights applications withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal during the hearing.
The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment and with respect to membership in a vocational association.
During the hearing of the applications, the applicant requested to withdraw both applications.
The respondents consented to the withdrawals.
The Tribunal granted the requests and the applications were withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.
Grievance dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the grievor remained a bargaining unit member during her temporary managerial assignment.
The grievor filed a complaint with the Public Service Grievance Board regarding two job competitions for managerial positions.
The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the grievor was a member of the AMAPCEO bargaining unit at all material times.
The grievor argued that while acting in a temporary managerial assignment, she should not be considered a member of the bargaining unit.
The Vice-Chair found that under the clear language of the AMAPCEO collective agreement, the grievor remained covered by the agreement during her temporary assignment.
Consequently, she was a member of a bargaining unit under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and was excluded from filing a complaint under O. Reg. 378/07.
The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
