Mary Beth Currie

The applicant employers sought revocation of a Review Officer Order which found that the Salvation Army was the single employer for all its facilities, corps, and centres for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal reviewed the organizational structure, financial control, human resources management, and program delivery of the Salvation Army and its various centres.

The Tribunal concluded that the Salvation Army Canada and Bermuda, acting through its corporate entity, exercised overall financial responsibility, control over compensation, and supervision of employee relations.

The Review Officer Order was confirmed.

In an interim decision during a pay equity hearing, the respondents argued that the applicants waived solicitor-client privilege regarding the role of in-house counsel in collective agreement negotiations, based on the counsel's testimony in chief and cross-examination.

The Tribunal ruled that the respondents could ask further questions in the areas already testified to, as privilege may not have attached or was waived by the responses given.

However, the applicants could still claim privilege over actual legal advice given on particular agreements and specific instructions received.

The respondents brought a motion for disclosure of certain documents held in the file of in-house counsel for the Salvation Army Territorial Headquarters.

The Tribunal applied the dominant purpose test to determine whether the documents were protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The Tribunal found that some documents, such as memoranda raising specific legal issues and a letter from an outside consultant, were privileged.

However, other documents, including job questionnaires and informational charts provided to all members of the Pay Equity Committee, were not privileged and were ordered to be disclosed.

The Tribunal also held that the testimony of in-house counsel regarding his role did not result in an implied waiver of privilege with respect to communications on employment matters.

At the hearing, the respondents sought an order requiring the applicants to disclose certain minutes of the Territorial Finance Council dealing with pay equity and financial matters.

The applicants opposed the disclosure as overly broad and lacking an evidentiary basis.

The Tribunal ordered the applicants to provide the requested minutes between January 1988 and December 1993 that deal with pay equity or yearly reviews of internal audits, subject to specific redactions for names of officers, religious roles, and certain institutions.

The respondent, Sears Canada Inc., brought a motion for costs against the Ontario Human Rights Commission following a decision that found the respondent had accommodated the complainant's disability after initial discrimination.

The respondent argued the complaint was trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith, and caused undue hardship.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that the Commission had a factual basis for proceeding and did not act in bad faith or cause undue hardship.

The respondent brought preliminary motions to stay a human rights complaint regarding wheelchair accessibility at a Sears store, following the death of the complainant.

The respondent argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction, the issue was moot, delay prejudiced the case, and proceeding was an abuse of process.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed all motions, finding that the Trustee Act permits the estate to continue the action, the public interest prevents the issue from being moot, facts could still be established through other witnesses, and the Commission's decision to proceed despite an investigator's recommendation was not an abuse of process.

The applicant employer sought declarations and directions under section 92 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent union and employees engaged in an unlawful strike by picketing the employer's premises during conciliation.

The Board found that the picketing occurred solely during unpaid lunch breaks, was informational in nature, and did not restrict or limit the employer's output or business operations.

As there was no cessation of work or concerted activity designed to restrict output, the picketing did not constitute an unlawful strike.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent occasional teachers employed by the respondent school board.

The parties disputed the appropriate bargaining unit description, specifically whether occasional teachers providing French language instruction under Part XI of the Education Act should be included in the same unit as English language occasional teachers.

The respondent also challenged the union's membership evidence, which was collected by mail and verified by telephone.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board first ruled that the membership evidence was acceptable.

On the bargaining unit issue, the Board applied the community of interest test and found that the Part XI occasional teachers shared a sufficiently coherent community of interest with the other occasional teachers.

The Board concluded that an all-inclusive bargaining unit was appropriate and directed that the segregated ballots be counted.