6 total
Summary hearing to dismiss racial discrimination application denied; applicant raised triable issues regarding termination.
The applicant, a personal support worker, filed an application alleging racial discrimination in her termination and prior discipline by the respondent hospital.
The Tribunal directed a summary hearing on its own initiative to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant alleged she was treated differently than a white colleague involved in the same incident and that a director made a discriminatory comment.
The Tribunal found that, assuming the facts alleged were true, it could not conclude there was no reasonable prospect of success in establishing a link between the events and race.
The application was allowed to continue in the Tribunal's process.
Application for non-construction employer declaration dismissed due to res judicata from prior Board decisions.
The applicant sought a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the responding party trade union, claiming it was a 'non-construction employer' under section 127.2 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The responding party and intervenor brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application on the basis of res judicata, arguing that the Board had previously determined the applicant was an employer in the construction industry.
The Board agreed, finding that earlier decisions had conclusively determined the applicant carried on business in the construction industry.
As the statutory definitions had not materially changed, the applicant was precluded from relitigating the issue.
The application was dismissed.
Board upholds employer's assignment of hoist maintenance work to ATU over IAM's jurisdictional claim.
The applicant employer assigned the maintenance, repair, and inspection of a newly installed Pfaff screw hoist to millwrights from the ATU.
The IAM disputed this assignment, claiming the work based on past practice with a previous hoist.
The Board found that both unions had members qualified to do the work and that past practice was mixed.
Ultimately, the Board upheld the employer's assignment to the ATU, finding it justified by economy and efficiency considerations, including the ATU members' prior experience with similar hoists and a shared management structure.
Board strikes requests for relief targeting inspector's conduct, finding its jurisdiction limited to workplace safety issues.
The appellants appealed a Ministry of Labour inspector's decision finding that the Toronto Transit Commission had complied with a previous order.
The appellants sought remedies including declarations that the inspector permitted the employer to contravene the Occupational Health and Safety Act by not allowing a worker committee member to accompany him during his investigation.
The Board struck these requests for relief, holding that its remedial jurisdiction under section 61 is limited to the powers of an inspector, and the scheme of the Act is not concerned with policing the actions of inspectors.
The remaining issues were referred to a Labour Relations Officer.
Laid-off employee attending employer-paid training course included on employee list for union certification count.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of the employer's employees.
The sole issue in dispute was whether a specific employee should be included on the list of employees for the purpose of determining the union's membership support.
The employee had been laid off prior to the application date but continued to attend an employer-paid training course related to his job duties.
The Board found that the employee was 'at work' while attending the course and was therefore properly included on the list of employees.
The Board ordered a representation vote.
Jurisdictional dispute over powerline refurbishment resolved in favour of the applicant construction union.
The applicant union filed a jurisdictional dispute regarding the assignment of work for the refurbishment of a 115KV powerline.
The employer had assigned the work to the Power Workers' Union.
The Board found that the work constituted transmission systems construction work covered by the applicant's collective agreement.
Considering past practice and economy and efficiency, the Board determined that the work should have been assigned to members of the applicant union and directed the employer to assign any remaining work accordingly.
