Robert Little

The applicant, a registered nurse with a visible disability, alleged that the respondent discriminated against her by denying her a position in the Post Anaesthetic Care Unit due to a negative performance reference and her disability.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that even if the applicant's allegations of unfairness and a negative reference were true, she failed to point to any evidence connecting the respondent's decision to her disability.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, improper notice of layoff, and failure to accommodate workplace restrictions.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the applicant's union had filed grievances based on the same facts and issues, which were scheduled for arbitration.

The applicant did not respond to the Notice.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and that deferral is the normal approach when concurrent proceedings raise the same issues.

The applicant alleged that his former employer discriminated against him on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and disability.

He claimed his supervisor mistreated him because he is a continental African and that his employment was terminated following a workplace injury.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The evidence showed that the supervisor treated all employees harshly, regardless of their background.

Furthermore, the employer terminated the applicant's employment after discovering he was working for another employer while claiming to be completely disabled from performing even modified duties for the respondent.

The application was dismissed.

The Union grieved the Employer's decision to deny six surplus employees pay in lieu of notice under Article 20.2.1 of the collective agreement.

The Employer argued that operational requirements necessitated the employees working their six-month notice period, assigning them to a central facility.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the Employer's withholding of consent for pay in lieu is subject to arbitral review for reasonableness and bona fide business reasons.

The Board found that the work assigned was 'make work' and that the Employer failed to establish a legitimate operational need for the grievors at their specific workplace.

The grievance was allowed, and the grievors were awarded six months' pay in lieu of notice.

The union appealed an Inspector's decision declining to make an order after the employer refused to allow the Joint Health and Safety Committee (JHSC) to inspect areas of the workplace where contractors were working under 'care and custody' agreements.

The employer and the Ministry of Labour raised a preliminary objection that the appeal did not make out a prima facie case and sought prospective remedies beyond the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding an arguable case that the employer's policy of limiting JHSC inspections violated the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The matter was remitted to a Labour Relations Officer for settlement discussions.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, alleging reprisals by the employer regarding his work assignment, a denied promotion, and an improper comment by his manager.

The employer raised preliminary objections that the application did not disclose a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding no causal nexus between the work assignment and the previous OHSA complaint, noting the promotion issue was already proceeding to grievance arbitration, and declining to inquire into the manager's comment due to its trivial nature and scant prospect of success.

The applicant filed a reprisal complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after being terminated.

Concurrently, his union filed a grievance which was settled, resulting in his reinstatement and back pay, which he accepted.

The applicant sought to continue his OHSA complaint to obtain additional relief.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that by accepting the benefits of the grievance settlement, the applicant had elected to proceed under the collective agreement pursuant to section 50(2) of the OHSA.

The Board also exercised its discretion under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act to decline to inquire further, as doing so would undermine the grievance settlement process.

The Northwest GTA Hospital Corporation applied under the Public Sector Labour Transition Act to resolve outstanding issues prior to ordering representation votes following a hospital amalgamation.

The Board determined the composition of office and clerical units, and declined to maintain separate bargaining units for stationary engineers and Etobicoke paraprofessionals, opting instead for broader service and paramedical/technical units to avoid undue fragmentation.

The Board also ordered the employer to provide the unions with employee names and addresses to facilitate access prior to the representation votes.

The applicant union brought an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that Westinghouse Canada Inc. was a successor or related employer to Westinghouse Electric Corporation.

The responding parties brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application on the basis that the collective agreement relied upon by the union was limited to the United States and had no extraterritorial application in Ontario.

The Board found that the collective agreement was silent on geographic scope and contained provisions specific to American law.

As there was no evidence of intent or past practice applying the agreement outside the U.S., the Board held the agreement did not apply in Ontario.

The application was dismissed as there were no bargaining rights to preserve.

The applicants sought interim orders staying the implementation of a Memorandum of Settlement respecting Generation Projects, alleging that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers had improperly negotiated the agreement to the detriment of Local 1788 members.

The Board first determined that while it lacked jurisdiction to grant substantive interim relief under section 98 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, it possessed such jurisdiction under section 16.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

However, the Board dismissed the application on its merits, finding that the alleged harm was speculative and personal, and that the applicants had engaged in undue delay in seeking relief.

The applicants filed a complaint alleging that the responding parties breached section 79 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by failing to conduct an employee ratification vote for a memorandum of settlement in the construction industry.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that section 44 of the Act explicitly exempts the construction industry from mandatory employee ratification votes.

The Board held that a trade union in the construction industry is free to choose a ratification process that does not include a vote of employees, such as a vote of accredited delegates.

The applicants alleged that the responding union violated section 79(9) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by establishing a ratification and strike vote procedure that was not reasonably convenient and did not provide ample opportunity to cast ballots.

The union had to organize a vote for approximately 65,000 employees across 4,000 work sites within 14 days.

The Board found that the union's voting arrangements, which included scheduling specific times and places while accommodating individual requests for changes, were sensible and responsive to diverse employee needs.

The Board held that 'reasonable convenience' under section 79(9) requires considering all circumstances, including the union's logistical challenges, and does not guarantee a vote during working hours or at the workplace.

The application was dismissed.

In a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of sex regarding the denial of sick leave benefits during a pregnancy-related leave, the respondents brought preliminary motions.

The adjudicator ruled that the Commission was not required to call the physicians who authored medical certificates as witnesses, as the Statutory Powers Procedure Act permits the admission of hearsay documents.

However, if the respondents chose to call the employer-nominated physician, they would be permitted to cross-examine her, and she would be required to produce her clinical notes from the single consultation.

The respondents' motion for complete pre-hearing disclosure of the complainant's medical files was denied as untimely, overbroad, and lacking sufficient evidentiary basis.

The applicant unions alleged that the Red Cross and various home care agencies and service providers violated the replacement worker provisions of the Labour Relations Act when clients were reassigned to other agencies during a lawful strike by Red Cross homemakers.

The Board found that the other agencies were not acting on behalf of the Red Cross and were not employers of the striking workers, dismissing the replacement worker complaints.

However, the Board found that the Red Cross violated sections 65, 67(c), and 71 of the Act by making intimidating statements to employees, threatening job loss if they exercised their right to strike.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the respondent employer breached the collective agreement by employing non-union members to perform bargaining unit work.

The employer argued that following a corporate restructuring, the non-union employees became shareholders and directors, and thus fell within the 'owners and managers' exception in the collective agreement.

The Board found that the employees' duties remained unchanged and did not involve supervising the work of others.

The Board upheld the grievance, finding the employer in breach of the union security and hiring provisions of the collective agreement.

The applicant employer sought a cease and desist direction against the respondent union and its officials for an alleged unlawful strike.

The employees had refused to work on a 'Sears job', claiming it was 'struck work' from a sister local's dispute, relying on a provision in their collective agreement that permitted such refusals.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the concerted refusal to work constituted an unlawful sympathetic strike under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ruled that parties cannot contract out of the statutory prohibition against mid-contract strikes, rendering the collective agreement's 'struck work' clause void as a defence to the unlawful strike application.

The Board issued declarations and directions to cease the unlawful activity.

The complainant alleged sex discrimination after being excluded from working in the Inco Pressure Carbonyl (IPC) processing area due to a company policy barring women of child-bearing potential.

The employer argued the policy was necessary to protect fetuses from potential exposure to nickel carbonyl gas.

The Board of Inquiry held that discrimination based on child-bearing potential constitutes sex discrimination.

The Board further found that the exclusionary policy was not a reasonable and bona fide occupational qualification, as the risk to a fetus was minimal and the policy was over-inclusive.

The employer was ordered to train and place the complainant in the IPC area and to abandon the exclusionary policy.