Robert Reid

The member, a former teacher and union negotiator, pleaded guilty to criminal charges of possessing and importing child pornography.

The Ontario College of Teachers Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct based on the criminal convictions.

The Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration, noting that contributing to the exploitation of children directly impacts suitability to teach.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought discipline proceedings against the member for professional misconduct relating to inappropriate sexual touching of a young person.

The member had been convicted of sexual assault and touching for a sexual purpose under the Criminal Code.

The member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and ordered the immediate revocation of his Certificate of Qualification and Registration.

Allegations relating to abusing a student were dismissed because the victim was not a student of the member.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought discipline proceedings against a member for professional misconduct involving inappropriate sexual touching and remarks to two students.

The member did not attend the hearing.

Based on an Agreed Statement of Facts and evidence of the member's criminal conviction for sexual exploitation under the Criminal Code, the Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the member's Certificate of Qualification and Regulation.

The Ontario College of Teachers held a discipline hearing regarding a member who had been convicted of sexual exploitation under the Criminal Code for inappropriately touching two students.

The member did not attend the hearing.

Based on an Agreed Statement of Facts, the Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and ordered the immediate revocation of his Certificate of Qualification.

The applicant, who operated an insulation business with his wife, applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

The union brought a non-suit motion, arguing the applicant was a principal of the company and that the application was not voluntary.

The Board granted the non-suit motion and dismissed the application, finding that even if the applicant were considered an employee, the decision to bring the application was made jointly with his wife, who managed the business.

Therefore, the application did not represent a voluntary expression of employee wishes free from management influence.

The applicant union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent argued it was not an employer in the construction industry, as the assembly of retail store displays was not construction work.

The Board found it unnecessary to decide whether the work was construction work.

Applying the 'majority of time' test, the Board determined that the two employees in question did not spend a majority of their time on the date of application performing the assembly and installation work.

As there were no employees in the proposed bargaining unit on the date of application, the application was dismissed.

In an application for certification, the interveners argued that certain employees should not be counted in the bargaining unit because they were hired contrary to the existing collective agreement, relying on the April Waterproofing principle.

The Board declined to apply the principle, finding that the interveners had failed to act with reasonable diligence to enforce their bargaining rights after becoming aware of the project's resumption.

The Board directed that the ballots of the eligible employees be counted for bargaining unit #1, and dismissed the application respecting bargaining unit #2.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union breached section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by acting arbitrarily in its administration of the hiring hall referral list.

The union's area steward bypassed the complainant, who was third on the list, and referred two other members to a short-term job because they lived closer to the site and could monitor it for non-union labour.

The Board found that while the steward acted without malice, his failure to even consider whether following the established list would have satisfied his concerns constituted arbitrary conduct.

The Board ruled that the union breached section 69.

The Minister of Labour referred questions to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the designation of employee and employer bargaining agencies in the construction industry, following the affiliation of the Lathers' International Union with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.

The Board found that the previous separate designations for the Lathers and their corresponding employers were no longer effective in either a legal or industrial relations sense.

The Board concluded that separate designations for acoustic and drywall workers were not appropriate, and recommended that all affected parties be included within a single set of comprehensive designations to reflect the consolidation of bargaining rights and avoid jurisdictional disputes.