12 total
Employer's absenteeism policy and issuance of non-disciplinary attendance letters upheld as reasonable.
The union filed a policy grievance challenging the employer's Absenteeism Control Procedures and Innocent Absenteeism Guidelines, specifically the issuance of non-disciplinary letters after a certain number of absences and the alleged failure to consider individual circumstances.
The arbitrator held that the employer is entitled to issue non-disciplinary letters to address innocent absenteeism and that a trigger of four absence incidents is permissible.
The arbitrator also found that the policy grants sufficient discretion to the employer to modify its application based on an employee's individual circumstances.
The grievance was dismissed, subject to the employer providing 90 days' notice for future changes to the policy.
Employer not required to pay for Functional Abilities Assessment Forms under collective agreement medical certificate provisions.
The union filed a policy grievance claiming the employer was liable to pay for Functional Abilities Assessment Forms (FAAF) required for employees returning to work following a medical absence.
The collective agreement required the employer to pay $10.00 for medical certificates verifying absences of less than five days, and required employees to provide satisfactory medical certificates at their own expense for longer absences.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that a FAAF is an addendum to a medical certificate to facilitate modified duties, not a medical examination required by the employer, and therefore the employer was not obligated to cover its cost.
Motion to add a competitor as a respondent in a human rights complaint regarding theatre captioning granted.
Two respondents in a human rights complaint regarding the failure to provide Rear Window Captioning technology in movie theatres brought a motion to add a competitor as a respondent to the combined proceedings.
The competitor initially opposed the motion but subsequently withdrew its opposition and consented to being added.
The Tribunal granted the motion, finding it appropriate to add the competitor so that key participants in the film industry could meet the allegations of discrimination together.
The Tribunal also set a schedule for pleadings and directed the parties to mediation.
Relitigating a criminal conviction in a subsequent labour arbitration constitutes an abuse of process.
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.
Relitigating a final criminal conviction in a grievance arbitration constitutes an abuse of process.
The employee was convicted of sexually assaulting a young boy in the course of his employment as a recreation instructor.
The employer subsequently dismissed him.
The union grieved the dismissal.
At the arbitration, the arbitrator allowed the union to relitigate the employee's culpability, ultimately finding the employee innocent and ordering his reinstatement.
The Divisional Court quashed the arbitrator's decision.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's ruling, holding that the arbitrator erred in law.
The Court found that permitting the relitigation of a final criminal conviction in a grievance arbitration, where the facts and issues are identical, violates the finality principle and constitutes an abuse of process.
Employee holding distinct part-time positions both inside and outside the bargaining unit is eligible to vote.
The union applied for certification and a representation vote was held.
One ballot was segregated and challenged by the union on the basis that the employee worked on the front desk and was therefore excluded from the agreed-upon bargaining unit.
The employer argued the employee was in the bargaining unit because she was hired as a housekeeper and continued to work housekeeping shifts.
The Board found that the employee held two distinct part-time positions, one in housekeeping (within the unit) and one on the front desk (excluded).
Because she held a part-time position within the bargaining unit, she was entitled to cast a ballot.
The Board directed a new representation vote to protect the secrecy of her ballot.
All-employee bargaining unit found appropriate for newly formed Crown corporation despite prior fragmented representation.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent an all-employee bargaining unit at a newly formed Crown corporation.
The intervenor union argued that the proposed unit was inappropriate because it would dismantle pre-existing bargaining structures where the intervenor represented supervisory and professional employees.
The Board held that due to the statutory exclusion of successor rights in this privatization, there were no pre-existing bargaining structures binding the new employer.
Applying its standard test, the Board found that an all-employee bargaining unit was appropriate and that the employees shared a sufficient community of interest.
Human rights complaints dismissed for abuse of process due to extreme delay and irremediable prejudice.
The respondents brought preliminary motions to stay or dismiss the 1994 human rights complaints against them on the grounds of abuse of process.
The complaints alleged discrimination on the basis of handicap regarding the placement of the complainant following a workplace injury.
The Board of Inquiry found that the Ontario Human Rights Commission's handling of the complaints involved significant delay, failure to provide timely notice, and inadequate disclosure.
Combined with the closure of the workplace, the destruction of relevant documents, and the deaths of key witnesses including the complainant, the respondents suffered irremediable prejudice.
The Board concluded that continuing the hearing would constitute an abuse of process and dismissed the complaints against all respondents.
Board has discretion to not impose a bar upon withdrawal of a certification application.
The union filed a certification application but withdrew it before a representation vote upon learning the employer had more employees than anticipated.
The Board permitted the withdrawal without imposing a bar.
The employer sought reconsideration, arguing that section 7(9) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 mandates a bar upon withdrawal.
The Board held that section 7(9) grants discretion to determine whether to impose a bar and its length.
Finding no abuse of process and that employee wishes had not yet been tested, the Board declined to impose a bar.
A certificate was issued in the union's subsequent successful application.
Union certification granted; proposed bargaining unit including medical technologists found appropriate for collective bargaining.
The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of employees at the responding party's medical centre.
The employer and a group of objecting employees argued that medical technologists should be excluded from the unit due to a lack of community of interest with office and clerical staff.
The Board applied the test from Hospital for Sick Children, finding that the proposed unit would not generate serious labour relations difficulties and was therefore appropriate.
The Board issued a certificate to the applicant.
The employer subsequently requested reconsideration of the Board's refusal to adjourn the hearing and its decision to grant the certificate.
The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no obvious error or new evidence to warrant varying its decision.
Application for interim relief to stay a sub-contracting clause dismissed due to insufficient particulars and delay.
The applicant, Local 2, sought interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to stay the operation of a sub-contracting clause in a collective agreement between the Metropolitan Toronto Apartment Builders Association (MTABA) and Labourers' Local 183.
Local 2 alleged that the clause, which required all bricklaying work to be performed by companies bound to Local 183 or Local 1, interfered with its bargaining rights in the residential sector.
The Board dismissed the application, finding that Local 2 failed to provide sufficient particulars regarding the source of its bargaining rights for the affected contractors.
Furthermore, the Board concluded that the potential harm to Local 183 and MTABA from staying a freely negotiated collective agreement provision outweighed the speculative harm alleged by Local 2, particularly given Local 2's delay in bringing the application.
Human rights complaint dismissed; probationary mechanic's termination was due to slow performance, not racial discrimination.
The complainant, a black man, was dismissed from his probationary employment as a mechanic at the respondent's truck centre.
He alleged that his dismissal and treatment during employment were the result of racial discrimination and harassment.
The respondents maintained that the complainant was dismissed because he was too slow at his work, citing several instances where he exceeded the allotted time for repairs.
The Board of Inquiry found that the respondents' explanation was credible and supported by the evidence, including the testimony of the Commission's own expert witness.
The Board concluded that there was no evidence of overt or systemic discrimination, nor any evidence of harassment, and dismissed the complaint.
