Harold F. Caley

A recreation instructor was convicted of sexually assaulting a boy under his supervision and was subsequently dismissed by the City of Toronto.

The union grieved the dismissal, and the arbitrator allowed the relitigation of the sexual assault allegations, ultimately finding the employee was dismissed without just cause.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the arbitrator's decision to allow relitigation of the criminal conviction was an abuse of process.

The Court ruled that the criminal conviction must stand with all its legal effects, and the arbitrator's failure to give it full effect rendered the decision patently unreasonable.

The applicant sought declarations terminating bargaining rights held by the responding unions.

On the first day of the hearing, the parties agreed to address a constitutional issue after determining the merits of the application.

The parties also agreed to move the venue of the hearing to Sault Ste.

Marie to accommodate witnesses.

The Board cancelled the previously scheduled date and fixed new dates for hearing evidence in Sault Ste.

Marie and argument in Toronto.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement to settle the grievance.

The Board issued a consent order declaring that the responding party was bound by the collective agreement, that it had violated the agreement, and ordering the responding party to pay $10,000 in damages to the applicant.

The applicant filed an application seeking a declaration that it is a 'non-construction employer' under the Labour Relations Act.

Before the hearing commenced, the statutory definition of 'non-construction employer' was amended.

The responding union brought a preliminary motion arguing the new definition should apply.

The Board dismissed the motion, holding that because the proceeding had been commenced prior to the amendment, the applicant had an accrued right to have the matter adjudicated under the law as it existed at the time the application was filed.

The applicants filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation and duty of fair referral under sections 74 and 75 of the Labour Relations Act.

One applicant alleged the union failed to pursue a grievance regarding his removal as a steward.

The Board found the union's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and dismissed this claim.

Both applicants also alleged they were improperly bypassed on the hiring hall list since 1994.

The Board dismissed these claims due to a lack of specific pleadings regarding who was improperly assigned work and the untimeliness of the allegations.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The responding employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the application was barred by the newly amended subsection 10(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, which prohibits another application by any trade union for one year following a dismissed application.

A prior application by a different union had been dismissed within the year.

The applicant argued the new bar did not apply retrospectively.

The Board held that the new subsection 10(3) applied to the present application, as the legislature intended the broader mandatory bar to apply immediately upon enactment.

The application was dismissed.

The Carpenters and Labourers unions disputed the assignment of work involving the dismantling and removal of seats from the North Grandstand of Exhibition Stadium prior to its demolition.

The employer had assigned the work to a composite crew of approximately 60% labourers and 40% carpenters.

The Labourers claimed exclusive jurisdiction based on a collective agreement appendix covering maintenance and repair of seating in the Stadium.

The Board found that the appendix applied to an operating venue, not demolition, and upheld the employer's assignment to a composite crew as reasonable and consistent with the practice in the rest of Exhibition Place.

The applicants requested an adjournment of the hearing to allow the Board to entertain a request for reconsideration of a prior decision that denied certain union locals standing to intervene.

The Board denied the adjournment, finding that no formal request for reconsideration had actually been filed, no extension of time had been granted, and any such request made at this late stage of the proceedings would be untimely.

The Board directed that the hearing on the merits proceed.

The applicant ballet company sought a stay of an interim arbitral award that suspended the non-renewal of the respondent dancer's employment contract and ordered her reinstatement pending a final decision.

The applicant argued the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to order reinstatement under the Labour Relations Act.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that while there was a serious question to be tried regarding jurisdiction, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm.

The balance of convenience strongly favoured the respondent, as a further hiatus in dancing would likely end her career, whereas the applicant would not suffer a fatal blow if she were reinstated.

The applicant City applied for declarations that the responding trade unions no longer represent its construction industry employees, asserting it is a non-construction employer under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding unions raised a constitutional challenge to sections 127.1 and 127.2 of the Act under the Charter.

The applicant sought to have the constitutional challenge determined on a preliminary basis, either by a motion to strike or following evidence on the constitutional issue alone.

The Board declined to hear the constitutional challenge as a preliminary matter, finding it premature as the Charter question would be moot if the applicant failed to establish it was a non-construction employer.

The Board directed that the constitutional issue be heard at the end of the proceedings.

The applicants alleged that the international union breached section 89 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by continuing to exercise de facto supervision and control over the local union after the initial 12-month trusteeship period had expired without an extension from the Board.

The Board dismissed the application for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board held that under section 89(2), a trusteeship automatically terminates after 12 months unless extended by the Board, and the Board has no jurisdiction under that section to inquire into or regulate de facto control exercised without a legally imposed trusteeship.

The parent international union imposed a trusteeship on Local 1072, a 'shop local' representing manufacturing employees.

The applicants challenged the trusteeship under section 149 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (Bill 80), which requires just cause for such actions.

The parent union argued that section 149 only applies to 'construction trade unions' as defined in section 126, and that Local 1072 did not meet this definition.

The Board agreed, finding that Local 1072's practices and collective agreements resembled those of an industrial union rather than a construction union.

Consequently, Local 1072 was not a construction union, and the Bill 80 protections did not apply.

The applicant union alleged that a sale of a business occurred and that the responding parties were related employers under common control or direction.

The union argued that a 'key person' from a unionized company left and subsequently started a new, non-unionized company in the same industry, thereby transferring the 'business'.

The Board found that the individual was no longer a 'key person' at the time of his departure, as the original company continued to grow and prosper without him.

Furthermore, due to a significant hiatus between his departure and the formation of the new company, there was no common control or direction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of hostel employees employed by the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

The intervener union argued the application should be dismissed because the applicant's constitution restricted membership to employees of the Crown, its agencies, or private employers, rendering municipal employees ineligible.

The Board found that the municipality was a public sector employer and not a 'private employer' within the meaning of the applicant's constitution.

As the applicant lacked an established practice of admitting persons outside its constitutional eligibility requirements, the application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit consisting of all full-time meat department employees of the responding party.

The responding party argued that the proposed unit was no longer a 'craft' unit under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act, claiming the employees no longer exercised technical skills distinguishing them from other employees.

The Board found that the meat cutters and wrappers continued to exercise technical skills and constituted a craft unit.

Finding that more than 55% of the employees in the unit were members of the applicant, the Board granted the application and issued a certificate.

The applicant union sought an interim order declaring it the successor union and exclusive bargaining agent for employees in over 200 pending successor rights applications.

The applications arose from a massive inter-union dispute following the purported merger of various Ontario locals of the RWDSU with the Steelworkers, which was contested by the RWDSU International and the UFCW.

The dispute caused widespread confusion and collective bargaining paralysis, prompting employers and the Minister of Labour to seek clarification on which union to deal with.

The Board granted the interim order, declaring the Steelworkers as the interim exclusive bargaining agent to preserve orderly labour relations and allow the collective bargaining process to function until the main applications are resolved.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees currently represented by the intervenor union.

A pre-hearing representation vote was held, but due to a snowstorm, the Board Officer arrived late and the polling times were changed by agreement of the parties.

The applicant won the vote.

The intervenor subsequently objected, arguing that the changed times disenfranchised certain drivers and requesting a new vote.

The Board dismissed the objection, noting that the intervenor had signed consent and waiver forms after the vote and failed to establish that any agreement for a re-vote had been made.

The Board upheld the vote results and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant sought to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The Board found that the petition in support of the termination application was not voluntary.

The Board noted that a prior petition had been circulated with management's knowledge and involvement, and that the union had originally been certified under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act due to egregious employer unfair labour practices.

Given the lingering effects of the employer's conduct and the circumstances surrounding the petitions, the termination application was dismissed.

The grievor requested the Board to reconvene to determine the amount of compensation due following a successful grievance for discharge without just cause.

The union, as the applicant, objected to bringing the matter back before the Board.

The employer also objected, arguing that only the union and the employer are parties to the grievance.

The Board dismissed the grievor's request, holding that only the union and the employer have standing on a section 124 application, and the grievor could not independently seek a ruling on compensation.

The applicant union filed a grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act regarding a work assignment currently being performed by the intervener union.

The Board determined that the grievance was essentially a jurisdictional dispute over work assignment.

The Board adjourned the section 124 application to allow the parties to file a jurisdictional dispute under section 91 of the Act, directing that both matters be listed and heard together if a jurisdictional dispute is filed.