11 total
Arbitrator's blanket ban on vaccine-related discipline was unreasonable, but premature termination justified reinstating hospital workers.
The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated two employees terminated for failing to comply with a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.
The arbitrator had ruled that an employer can never discipline an employee for refusing to consent to medical treatment.
The Divisional Court found this conclusion unreasonable, as it failed to balance the hospital's duty to protect patients against the employees' privacy interests in the context of a pandemic.
However, the court upheld the arbitrator's ultimate decision to reinstate the employees, noting that terminating them after only two weeks of unpaid leave was premature.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Judicial review of OLRB certification dismissed; Board reasonably found single-division bargaining unit appropriate.
The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying a union to represent employees within only one division of the company.
The employer argued the Board unreasonably departed from practice by certifying a unit within a division that is not a legal entity, and ignored serious labour relations harm.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably applied the principle that a union's proposed unit will be granted unless it causes serious labour relations problems, and reasonably concluded the employer failed to demonstrate such harm.
Court orders further service on respondents who failed to attend case conference for contempt application.
The applicant brought a stated case from the Ontario Labour Relations Board seeking a finding of contempt against the respondents.
The respondents failed to attend a case management teleconference despite being served.
The court ordered the applicant to take further steps to serve the respondents, including personal service on the corporate directors and the personal respondent, and directed the OLRB to appear at the next case conference due to the unusual delay since the case was stated in 2020.
Defamation action dismissed as the OLRB has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from union displacement campaigns.
The plaintiffs brought a defamation action against the defendants regarding statements made during a union organizing drive where the plaintiffs sought to displace the incumbent union.
The defendants moved to dismiss the action under Rule 21.01(3)(a), arguing the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) had exclusive jurisdiction.
Applying the Weber analysis, the court determined the essential character of the dispute concerned alleged misrepresentations during a displacement campaign, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the OLRB under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.
Arbitrator issues directions for submissions and documentation regarding grievors' accommodation requests.
During a case management conference call, the union requested accommodation for the grievors based on medical documentation.
The arbitrator outlined the quasi-judicial nature of the Grievance Settlement Board proceedings and the requirement for medical documentation to substantiate accommodation requests.
The arbitrator directed the union to provide specific accommodation requests and details of any accommodations provided in related criminal proceedings, and directed the employer to respond with any objections.
Meal allowance grievances allowed; Custodial Responsibility Allowance grievances denied in expedited arbitration.
In an expedited mediation/arbitration under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the Union grieved the Employer's denial of meal allowances and Custodial Responsibility Allowances (CRA) for two Motor Vehicle Operators.
The arbitrator allowed the meal allowance grievances, directing the Employer to consider the claims.
The CRA grievances were denied, as the grievors did not meet the conditions under the collective agreement, subject to the Union's right to argue human rights issues in a separate grievance.
Arbitrator has jurisdiction to consolidate grievances assigned to different roster arbitrators because the Board is a single entity.
The Employer brought a motion to consolidate two sets of grievances (the Cody grievances and the MacDonald grievances) that arose from the same series of events involving alleged workplace harassment and assault.
The Union opposed the motion, arguing that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to consolidate the grievances because another arbitrator was already seized with the MacDonald grievances.
The arbitrator held that, as a roster arbitrator acting as the Grievance Settlement Board, she had the jurisdiction to consolidate the grievances under the Board's Rules of Procedure, because the Board is a single entity.
The arbitrator granted the motion, finding that the grievances involved common factual issues and should be heard together to avoid conflicting rulings and ensure efficiency.
Employer's motion for non-suit in grievance over removal of protective equipment dismissed.
The union filed grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement and the Occupational Health and Safety Act by revoking the 'conservation officer' designation for Agriculture Investigators, which resulted in the removal of their side-arms and pepper spray.
After the union closed its case, the employer moved for a non-suit.
Applying the standard that a non-suit must be denied if there is some evidence to support a prima facie case, the Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the employer's motion.
Pursuant to the parties' agreement, the Board provided no reasons for its conclusion.
Grievances dismissed; employer had just cause to reprimand for time theft and suspend for dishonesty.
The grievor, a Real Estate Officer, challenged a letter of reprimand and a 10-day suspension.
The reprimand was issued after a member of the public observed the grievor sleeping in a government vehicle for an extended period while claiming overtime.
The suspension was issued for dishonesty and insubordination during an investigation into a potential conflict of interest involving the grievor's sole proprietorship.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer had just cause for both disciplinary actions, as the grievor had claimed hours not worked, intentionally misled the employer during the conflict of interest investigation, and failed to comply with reasonable requests for information.
The grievances were dismissed.
Medical records production ordered and compensation limited after grievor failed to attend termination grievance hearing.
The grievor's employment was terminated for allegedly breaching the attendance provision of a Last Chance Agreement.
The union grieved the termination, asserting the breach was caused by a disability.
When the grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing, the matter was adjourned.
The Vice-Chair ordered the union to produce relevant medical records and any expert reports regarding the alleged disability prior to the rescheduled hearing.
The Vice-Chair also ordered that if the grievance succeeds, the grievor will not be entitled to compensation for the period of delay caused by her non-attendance, unless she establishes a valid reason for her absence.
Grievances arising from the same workplace assault incident ordered to be heard together to avoid inconsistent findings.
The employer brought a motion to consolidate the discharge grievance of one employee with the grievance of another employee who alleged the employer failed to provide a safe workplace.
Both grievances arose from the same incident where the discharged employee allegedly assaulted the other employee.
The union opposed consolidation on behalf of the assaulted employee, arguing it would cause delay and stress.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the matters shared common questions of fact and arose from the same occurrence.
To avoid inconsistent findings of fact, the Board ordered that the matters be heard together, though they would retain their individual identities rather than being strictly consolidated.
