Jeff Andrew

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability and age.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, noting it was representing the applicant in a related grievance proceeding to arbitration.

The applicant opposed the intervention.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, noting its standard practice to do so absent exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal also requested submissions from the parties on whether the application should be deferred pending the completion of the grievance arbitration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and reprisals by her employer and several individuals.

The applicant had also filed a union grievance concerning the same facts.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

Finding that the grievance process was ongoing, involved the same facts and issues, and that the arbitrator had the authority to apply the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of the applicant's concurrent union grievances.

The applicant's union also requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, noting the established practice of allowing bargaining agents to intervene in employment discrimination cases.

The Tribunal also deferred the application, finding that the issues raised in the four active grievances overlapped with the concerns alleged in the human rights application.

The applicant union alleged a sale of business from Greenberg Stores Ltd. to Saan Stores Ltd. following Greenberg's bankruptcy, or alternatively sought a related employer declaration against Gendis Inc., Greenberg, and Saan.

The Board found no sale of business under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, as there was no evidence Saan used Greenberg's acquired trademarks to operate its new store.

While the Board found the entities met the criteria for related businesses under section 1(4), it declined to exercise its discretion to make a declaration.

The Board concluded the union's bargaining rights were lost due to Greenberg's legitimate economic failure, not artificial corporate manipulation.

The applicant, United Steelworkers of America, brought a successor rights application under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board declared that CAW Local 448 acquired the rights, privileges, and status of its predecessor, Retail Wholesale Canada, Canadian Service Sector Division of the United Steelworkers of America, Local 448, by reason of a merger, amalgamation, or transfer of jurisdiction.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated section 70 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by refusing to provide the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of bargaining unit employees.

The employer argued it was protecting employee privacy.

The Board held that the union requires this information to fulfill its statutory duty of fair representation and that the employer's refusal, while bona fide, interfered with the union's representation capacity.

The Board ordered the employer to provide the information but dismissed the union's application for consent to prosecute, finding the employer's conduct was not flagrant or egregious.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated section 70 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by refusing to provide the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of bargaining unit employees.

The employer argued its refusal was based on a policy to protect employee privacy.

The Board found that the union requires this information to fulfill its statutory duty to represent employees fairly and effectively.

The Board held that the employer's refusal, while bona fide, interfered with the union's representation capacity without a sufficient countervailing business purpose, thereby violating section 70.

The employer was ordered to provide the information.

The union's application for consent to prosecute was dismissed as the employer's conduct was not egregious or flagrant.

The Ontario College of Teachers held a discipline hearing regarding a member who had been convicted of sexual assault and unlawful confinement involving two adult females.

The member pleaded guilty to several counts of professional misconduct but contested others.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of all alleged counts of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered the member's teaching certificate suspended until August 31, 2000, with reinstatement contingent upon a psychiatric report indicating he is unlikely to reoffend and understands the gender issues involved.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer taxi company violated the Labour Relations Act by increasing plate lease rates and strictly enforcing a ban on 'jump calls' during a union organizing campaign.

The Board found that while the lease rate increase did not violate the statutory freeze because it was announced prior to the certification application, it was tainted by anti-union animus and violated sections 70, 72, and 76 of the Act.

The Board also found that the stricter enforcement of the jump call ban constituted a change in working conditions that violated the statutory freeze under section 86(2).

The employer was ordered to restore the previous lease rates and jump call practices.

The applicant trade union filed for certification under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging employer unfair labour practices prevented it from demonstrating the required membership support for a representation vote.

Following the application, the legislature passed Bill 31, which amended section 11 to require that a prior representation vote must have been held before the Board could order a second vote as a remedy.

The respondent employer moved to dismiss the certification application on the basis that the amended section 11 no longer permitted certification without a prior vote.

The Board agreed, finding that the explicit language of the amended section 11 restricted remedies to ordering a second vote, and dismissed the certification application.

However, the Board declined to impose a bar on future applications by the union.

The union applied for interim relief under section 98 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking an order that the responding parties produce financial and lease information necessary for collective bargaining.

The responding parties objected to producing lease agreements, citing confidentiality and competitive sensitivity.

The Board found an arguable case on the merits and that the balance of harm favoured granting the order.

The Board directed the responding parties to produce the requested information, subject to confidentiality restrictions, to facilitate bargaining for a second collective agreement.

The applicant union sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act regarding changes to drivers' working conditions implemented by the responding employer without union input.

The union argued the changes violated the statutory freeze under section 81(1) of the Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the interim direction, ordering the employer to rescind the new arrangements and return the situation to what it was prior to the changes, pending bargaining in good faith.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied for certification and sought to remove the phrase 'employed in a nursing capacity' from the standard bargaining unit description, or alternatively, to include the positions of Nurse Clinician, Pharmacy Technician I, and Discharge Planner/Infection Control Nurse within that definition.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to alter the standard craft-like bargaining unit description for nurses.

However, the Board found that the incumbents in all three disputed positions were required by the hospital to hold a Registered Nurse qualification and were expected to possess the training and skills of a nurse to perform their duties.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the positions were 'employed in a nursing capacity' and included them in the bargaining unit.

One Board Member dissented regarding the inclusion of the Pharmacy Technician I position.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of clerical employees at a medical centre, explicitly excluding registered nurses.

The responding employer argued that the appropriate unit should be an all-employee unit including the nurses.

The Board examined the community of interest and the extensive overlap in duties between the clerical staff and nurses, particularly in reception and patient handling.

The majority concluded that excluding the nurses would likely cause serious labour relations problems, such as jurisdictional disputes, due to the high degree of functional integration.

Finding the proposed unit inappropriate and noting the union lacked sufficient support for the broader all-employee unit, the Board dismissed the application.

A dissenting member would have granted the proposed unit to facilitate access to collective bargaining.