Janice Baker

In an application for certification, the parties disputed the voter eligibility of several positions, arguing they should be excluded under section 1(3) of the Labour Relations Act due to managerial functions or confidential capacity relating to labour relations.

The Board found that the Assistant to the Director of Finance was properly excluded as part of the managerial team due to her role as a 'change agent' with access to financial information.

However, the Volunteer Coordinator, Network & Facilities Manager, and two bookkeepers were found to be employees within the bargaining unit, as their duties did not involve regular and material involvement in confidential labour relations matters or independent managerial authority.

The employer applied to revoke a Review Officer's order requiring it to adjust the job rate of Registered Nursing Assistants (RNAs) to equal that of Ambulance Attendants (AAs).

The wage gap emerged after pay equity was achieved, as a result of an interest arbitration award that gave AAs a larger increase to achieve parity with provincial counterparts.

The employer argued this was permitted under s. 8(2) of the Pay Equity Act as a difference in 'bargaining strength'.

The Tribunal held that the s. 8(2) exception does not apply when the female and male job classes are in the same bargaining unit.

The Review Officer's order was upheld.

The SEIU filed an unfair labour practice complaint and sought new representation votes under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, alleging irregularities by the Hospital and CUPE prior to the votes.

The Hospital and CUPE brought a motion to dismiss the complaint under s. 23(19) of the Act.

The Board granted the motion, finding that despite any alleged irregularities, the results of the representation votes reflected the true wishes of the majority of the employees in the bargaining units.

The Board appointed CUPE as the bargaining agent for both the Service Full-Time and Service Part-Time units.

The applicants filed multiple applications before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal against their union and employer.

Following a letter from the lead applicant, the Tribunal dismissed the applications.

A related application between the union and the employer remained adjourned sine die.

The Hospital for Sick Children objected to two Orders by a Review Officer that re-evaluated the female job classes of registered nurse (RN) and assistant clinical co-ordinator (ACC) to higher grades under the Pay Equity Act.

The Nurses sought to uphold the RN Order or, alternatively, argued the Hospital's job evaluation system was gender biased.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal majority found the Nurses failed to prove the system was gender biased.

Applying the system, the majority varied the RN Order, finding the four RN positions evaluated fell into two distinct job classes (Grades 10 and 11), and revoked the ACC Order, returning it to Grade 12.

The dissenting Chair would have upheld the RN Order placing them in Grade 12.

The applicants, two registered nurses, filed a complaint against their union alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

They claimed the union delayed scheduling their grievances regarding wage grid placement, failed to support one applicant in Workers' Compensation matters, and failed to prevent her termination for not providing medical information.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union had not acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.

The union had filed grievances as requested, provided ongoing advice and representation, and the applicant's termination resulted from her own refusal to comply with the employer's requests and the union's advice.

The applicant unions alleged that the Red Cross and various home care agencies and service providers violated the replacement worker provisions of the Labour Relations Act when clients were reassigned to other agencies during a lawful strike by Red Cross homemakers.

The Board found that the other agencies were not acting on behalf of the Red Cross and were not employers of the striking workers, dismissing the replacement worker complaints.

However, the Board found that the Red Cross violated sections 65, 67(c), and 71 of the Act by making intimidating statements to employees, threatening job loss if they exercised their right to strike.

The respondent hospital sought disclosure of documents and information relating to a human rights complaint alleging systemic discrimination.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission objected, arguing the request was premature and that the information was privileged.

The Board of Inquiry held that the Stinchcombe doctrine of disclosure applies to human rights proceedings given the serious nature of the allegations.

The Board found that while documents prepared for conciliation or litigation are privileged, statements gathered during the investigation stage are not.

The Board quashed the hospital's subpoena as premature but ordered the Commission to disclose complainant statements and relevant witness statements.

The complainant, a registered nurse, was denied family benefits for her same-sex conjugal partner under her employer's group benefit plan.

The Board of Inquiry found that the denial of benefits to same-sex couples constituted discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Board held that the exemption in section 25(2) of the Code for benefit plans discriminating on the basis of marital status did not apply to discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The respondent was ordered to pay $4,000 in compensation for loss of dignity and to amend its benefit plans to provide coverage for same-sex couples.

The respondents, the Ontario Hospital Association and Gord Cunningham, brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the human rights complaint against them, arguing that the agreed statement of facts showed they did not administer the employee benefits plan at issue.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission argued it was premature to dismiss the complaint before hearing evidence.

The Board of Inquiry declined to dismiss the complaint, noting that the Commission might have other evidence implicating the respondents.

However, the Board found it would be an abuse of process to proceed without the respondents knowing the case against them, and ordered the Commission to provide appropriate disclosure within thirty days.

The applicant union filed complaints alleging that the SKEW job evaluation system proposed by the respondent hospitals was not gender neutral and failed to accurately capture and value nursing work.

The Tribunal found that the SKEW system's job fact sheet and valuing tool did not meet the standard of gender neutrality required by the Pay Equity Act, as they failed to make visible and appropriately value the complex skills, effort, responsibilities, and working conditions inherent in nursing.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to negotiate and design a new gender neutral comparison system tailored to accurately capture the job content of the nursing and male comparator job classes in the hospitals.

The complainant alleged racial discrimination in employment against the East York Board of Education and individual respondents.

During the hearing, the complainant engaged in disruptive conduct and refused to provide an undertaking to the Board of Inquiry that he would answer questions directly and cease making derogatory comments.

Consequently, the Board ruled that the hearing could not proceed in an orderly manner and dismissed the complaint for lack of evidence.

The respondents then sought costs under s. 40(6) of the Human Rights Code.

The Board found that the respondents suffered undue hardship and ordered the Ontario Human Rights Commission to pay solicitor-client costs of $108,230.42, plus $10,027.60 for time spent by one of the respondents preparing for the hearing.

The employers and bargaining agents disputed the number of job classes and pay equity plans required for elementary school teachers under the Pay Equity Act, 1987.

The employers argued that all elementary teachers constituted a single job class and that separate pay equity plans were required for male and female teachers.

The Tribunal held that elementary teachers are divided into seven distinct job classes based on their different educational qualifications and corresponding salary ranges.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that a single pay equity plan was appropriate for all elementary teachers, as they form a single bargaining unit represented jointly by their respective branch affiliates.

The Tribunal also permitted limited intervenor status to the secondary school teachers' federation to provide historical context on teacher compensation grids.

Peat Marwick requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision denying it intervenor status in a pay equity dispute between the Ontario Nurses' Association and Women's College Hospital.

The Tribunal held that its discretion to reconsider decisions under s. 30(2) of the Pay Equity Act should only be exercised in compelling and extraordinary circumstances to preserve the finality of decisions.

Finding no new evidence, change in circumstances, or error of law, the majority dismissed the request.

One member dissented, finding that the consolidation of multiple similar applications constituted a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant reconsideration.

The Tribunal considered a preliminary objection regarding whether an application must be processed through Review Services before being filed with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal ordered that notice of the preliminary objection be given to the Pay Equity Office to obtain its views on the ramifications of not following the process set out in the Pay Equity Act.

The Ontario Nurses' Association and Women's College Hospital filed cross-applications regarding the negotiation of a pay equity plan and the gender neutrality of the proposed job evaluation system.

Stevenson, Kellogg, Ernst & Whinney (SKEW), the creator of the job evaluation system, sought intervenor status, arguing its commercial interests and reputation could be adversely affected.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal denied the intervention, finding that SKEW's interest was merely commercial and incidental to the main issue between the employer and the union.

The Tribunal also confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the complaints.

The 73-year-old complainant, who has a severe visual impairment, applied for financial assistance under the Ministry of Health's Assistive Devices Program to purchase a closed circuit television magnifier.

He was denied funding because the program restricted visual aids to persons 22 years of age and under.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the age restriction violated the right to equal treatment under section 1 of the Human Rights Code, the program was protected under section 13 as a special program designed to assist disadvantaged persons.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant alleged sex discrimination after being excluded from working in the Inco Pressure Carbonyl (IPC) processing area due to a company policy barring women of child-bearing potential.

The employer argued the policy was necessary to protect fetuses from potential exposure to nickel carbonyl gas.

The Board of Inquiry held that discrimination based on child-bearing potential constitutes sex discrimination.

The Board further found that the exclusionary policy was not a reasonable and bona fide occupational qualification, as the risk to a fetus was minimal and the policy was over-inclusive.

The employer was ordered to train and place the complainant in the IPC area and to abandon the exclusionary policy.

The complainants alleged contraventions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Labour Relations Act.

During preliminary matters, the Board ruled on two issues.

First, the Board ordered that the complainant's adviser be permitted to attend a view of the respondent's premises, finding it necessary for a fair hearing and noting no prejudice to the respondent.

Second, the Board dismissed the respondent's request to exclude the press from the hearing room, holding that hearings are presumptively open to the public and the respondent had not met the onus under section 9(1)(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to justify an in camera hearing.

The applicant union referred three grievances to arbitration, alleging the respondent Board of Education violated the subcontracting clause of the provincial collective agreement by contracting masonry work to non-union employers.

The respondent argued it was merely a purchaser of construction, not an employer operating a business in the construction industry.

The Board found that the respondent exercised sufficient control over the job site and the selection of contractors to be considered engaged in a business in the construction industry.

The grievances were allowed and the applicant was entitled to compensation.