Mark E. Geiger

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

The applicant's union had also filed grievances on her behalf, one of which was referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

Finding that the grievance and the application were based on the same facts and issues, the Tribunal deferred the application in accordance with its general practice.

The corporate respondent requested an order requiring the Peel Regional Police to produce original digital versions of photographs showing the complainant's alleged injuries.

The complainant opposed the request, arguing the copies already provided were adequate.

The Tribunal found the digital photographs were arguably relevant to the dispute over whether the complainant's wounds were caused by biting during the alleged assault.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the digital photographs at the corporate respondent's expense.

The Tribunal also granted the Ontario Human Rights Commission's request to withdraw from the proceeding without conditions.

The corporate respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of original digital photographs from the police, clinical notes from the complainant's doctors, and an order preventing any future motion to remove its counsel for conflict of interest.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for photographs because the police were not served.

The request for medical records was deemed premature as the complainant was already complying.

The Tribunal also refused to restrict the rights of the Commission or complainant to bring future motions regarding counsel's potential conflict of interest.

The Board heard a displacement application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint in the construction industry.

The parties reached an agreement that three specific individuals were not entitled to vote as they were not at work on the application date.

Due to scheduling conflicts, the hearing for the remaining unfair labour practice complaint was adjourned to March 2002.

The Board directed the employer to post a notice reminding employees of their rights under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, pending the continuation of the hearing.

The applicants sought a declaration under section 61 of the Labour Relations Act that the Canadian Union of Shinglers & Allied Workers (CUSAW) no longer represented employees in certain bargaining units.

During the hearing, after the CUSAW closed its case, the applicants brought a nonsuit motion arguing that the CUSAW failed to establish it was a trade union.

The Board allowed the nonsuit motion without putting the applicants to their election, finding that the CUSAW was an organization formed and operated by employers (crew leaders) rather than an organization of employees.

Consequently, the Board declared that the CUSAW was not a trade union and held no valid collective agreements.

The appellant company closed its plant and terminated group insurance benefits for retired workers following the expiration of the collective agreement.

The union grieved the termination of benefits.

The company objected to the arbitrator's jurisdiction on the basis that the collective agreement had expired.

The arbitrator found the matter arbitrable.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the arbitrator's decision on jurisdiction must be correct, applying a pragmatic and functional approach.

The Court further held that retirement benefits can vest and survive the expiration of a collective agreement, allowing the grievance to proceed.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

Counsel for a group of employees and counsel for the respondent employer requested a hearing prior to the vote, alleging issues with the union's membership evidence, including unreturned cards from a previous dismissed application.

The Board declined to schedule a hearing prior to the vote, holding that issues regarding the adequacy and integrity of membership evidence should be dealt with at a hearing after the pre-hearing vote is conducted, as per the statutory scheme.

The Board directed the taking of a pre-hearing representation vote and ordered the ballot box sealed.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent employer failed to comply with an oral settlement of a prior grievance.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction to enforce an oral settlement.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that it has jurisdiction to enforce oral settlements and that there is no requirement for such settlements to be in writing.

On the merits, the Board found that the respondent's Installation Manager had apparent authority to enter into the settlement on behalf of the employer.

The Board directed the respondent to pay the agreed settlement amounts.