John Saunders

The Union filed a policy grievance asserting that Article 39.4(6) of the 2014 collective agreement, which provided a $0.25/hour annual wage increase for Transit Safety Officers, continued to form part of the 2018 collective agreement.

The Employer argued that the 2018 Memorandum of Settlement, which provided for across-the-board wage increases, implicitly removed the specific increase for Transit Safety Officers.

The Arbitrator found that the 2018 Memorandum did not expressly remove the provision and that the across-the-board increases served a different purpose than the specific wage adjustment for Transit Safety Officers.

The grievance was allowed, and the Arbitrator declared that Article 39.4(6) forms part of the 2018 collective agreement.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to prevent the respondent from calling or submitting evidence, alleging the respondent filed a false Statement of Delivery and delivered its arguably relevant documents two days late.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Statement of Delivery was not false and that the minor two-day delay in delivery caused no prejudice to the applicant.

The applicant filed a human rights application while a concurrent union grievance proceeding involving the same facts was ongoing.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the resolution of the grievance.

The applicant did not file a reply to the deferral request.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as the grievance process was initiated first, involved the same issues, and the arbitrator had the authority to apply the Human Rights Code.

The application was deferred.

The respondents filed Requests for Order seeking particulars, production of documents, and the removal of the individual respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The applicant failed to respond to the requests.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide particulars of the alleged discriminatory conduct and to file a Reply.

The Tribunal deferred the issue of removing the individual respondents until the particulars were received, and ordered both parties to confirm they had exchanged all arguably relevant documents.

The applicant, who suffered from colitis, required unrestricted access to the washroom.

She alleged that her employer and supervisors discriminated against her by failing to accommodate this need, and that she was harassed by co-workers who complained about her washroom use.

The Tribunal found that the respondents failed in both their procedural and substantive duties to accommodate her disability, and failed to properly address the harassment.

Furthermore, the respondents failed to accommodate the applicant when they terminated her employment while she was on medical leave without making further inquiries about her health status.

The allegations of reprisal were dismissed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a brief decision amending the style of cause from its previous decision of May 4, 2001, to reflect the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 443 as an intervenor.

The applicant union brought an application under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act concerning paramedics formerly employed by various health services and hired by the City of Owen Sound.

The parties reached an Interim Protocol regarding the representation of paramedics and firefighters pending the Board's final determination on whether paramedics are considered firefighters under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.

The Board directed that the parties are bound by the Interim Protocol, which includes provisions for separate bargaining units and a dispute resolution mechanism.

The applicant, a seasonal employee, alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by failing to properly process her grievance regarding seniority and recall rights.

She also alleged a breach of section 79(8) regarding the conduct of a ratification vote.

The Board found that the union processed the grievance to the third step and made a reasonable decision not to proceed to arbitration based on the collective agreement language.

The Board also found insufficient evidence that any employee was improperly denied the opportunity to vote at the ratification meeting.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant employer appealed an inspector's order requiring it to pay a joint health and safety committee member premium pay for attending a committee meeting on his scheduled day off.

The collective agreement provided that committee members would be paid at their straight time hourly rate for monthly meetings.

The Board held that the collective agreement's specific provision regarding committee meeting pay took precedence over general overtime provisions, and that straight time pay was 'proper' within the meaning of section 9(35) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The application was allowed and the inspector's order was rescinded.

Following the amalgamation of seven municipalities into the new City of Toronto, the Ontario Labour Relations Board was asked to determine the appropriate bargaining unit structures under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The Board eliminated a small craft unit of operating engineers at a landfill site, integrating them into the broader outside workers unit.

The Board rejected proposals to create a separate health department bargaining unit and a separate nurses' unit within the health department, finding that these employees were appropriately situated within the larger municipal inside workers unit.

However, the Board preserved the separate stand-alone bargaining unit for employees of the Toronto Parking Authority, noting its status as a distinct local board and successor employer under the legislation.

The applicant union sought interim relief under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997, challenging the Toronto Parking Authority's recruitment of employees currently employed by the City of Toronto.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to consider the application, as the issues arose from the negotiation process contemplated by the Act.

Although the application did not strictly comply with the Board's Rules of Procedure, the Board granted relief against strict compliance.

The Board also found that the responding parties' conduct did not appear inconsistent with the Act, but left the final determination of interim relief for a reconvened consultation.

The union filed a construction industry grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by laying off senior employees while retaining two less senior employees who had recently returned from compensable injuries.

The employer argued it was required to retain the injured workers under the re-employment obligations of the Workers' Compensation Act.

The Board held that section 54(15) of the Workers' Compensation Act explicitly provides that the statutory re-employment obligations do not displace the seniority provisions of a collective agreement.

The Board declared that the employer breached the collective agreement by retaining the less senior employees.

The applicant union filed a grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act alleging that the respondent employer improperly assigned the assembly of a metal meter shed to a mixed crew of carpenters and labourers instead of sheet metal workers.

The intervener union argued that the work was properly assigned based on established practice.

The Board determined that the matter was essentially a jurisdictional dispute that should be dealt with under section 91 of the Act to allow all interested parties, including the unrepresented labourers' union, to participate.

The Board adjourned the section 124 application for 30 days to permit the filing of a jurisdictional dispute.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor was laid off in violation of the collective agreement.

The respondent employer argued that the collective agreement did not apply because the grievor was working in a pallet yard as part of a rehabilitation program for injured workers, which it claimed was not construction industry work.

The Board found that the collective agreement contained a latent ambiguity regarding its application to the pallet yard work.

Relying on extrinsic evidence, including the deduction of union dues and the application of trade jurisdictions in the pallet yard, the Board concluded that the parties intended the collective agreement to apply.

The grievance was allowed.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether Head Secretaries employed by the respondent school board were employees within the meaning of the Act.

The respondent argued the Board should not entertain the application because the position was expressly excluded from the bargaining unit during certification.

The Board decided to answer the question, noting the union's allegation of a bargaining table agreement to determine the issue via section 106(2) and the resources already expended on the inquiry.

On the merits, the Board found that Head Secretaries do not exercise managerial functions or act in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations under section 1(3)(b).

The Board concluded they are employees under the Act.