S. Margot Blight

The applicant filed an application alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union had investigated complaints about a job selection process and filed a grievance, which it later settled with the employer by agreeing to re-run certain positions.

The applicant, who had been successful in the initial selection process, complained that the union acted arbitrarily by not seeking his input before settling the grievance.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union had conducted a sufficient investigation to establish that the initial complaints were well-founded, and its failure to seek the applicant's input did not constitute a violation of the Act.

The applicant, an employee in a temporary rotational position, alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union had negotiated an Incentive Pay Plan with the employer but was unable to secure the employer's agreement to include employees in rotational positions.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that a union does not violate the Act merely by failing to secure a benefit for all members, absent any allegation that the exclusion was motivated by arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Prior to the conclusion of the hearing regarding the appropriate geographic scope of the bargaining unit, the parties reached an agreement.

The Board found the agreed-upon unit of security guards at the Lakeview Generating Station to be appropriate for collective bargaining.

As more than fifty percent of the ballots cast in the representation vote were in favour of the applicant, the Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicants sought a new representation vote, alleging the employer committed unfair labour practices by denying union leave to SEIU members to campaign for OSSTF while granting leave to CUPE members, and allowing CUPE to campaign on school time.

The Board dismissed the request for a new vote on a preliminary motion, finding that even if the allegations were true, the conduct amounted to a loss of opportunity to influence voters rather than conduct that would overwhelm employees' ability to express their true wishes in a secret ballot.

The union filed construction industry grievances against two employers for failing to pay interest charges on late remittances to trust funds, as required by the collective agreement.

The employers raised preliminary objections, primarily arguing that the grievances were untimely.

The Board found that the trust fund administrator's 'dunning letters' did not constitute formal grievances and that the actual grievances were filed well beyond the time limits specified in the collective agreement.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time limits, finding no reasonable grounds to do so, and dismissed the grievances in their entirety.

The respondents in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation brought a preliminary motion seeking access to the notes made by the Commission's investigating officer.

The respondents argued that the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Stinchcombe required full disclosure.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, holding that Stinchcombe does not apply directly to human rights proceedings, which are civil rather than criminal in nature.

The Board emphasized the need to protect the confidentiality of witnesses who participate in human rights investigations to prevent potential reprisal and ensure the efficacy of the investigative process.

The individual respondent brought a preliminary motion to stay human rights proceedings against him, arguing that an extensive delay by the Commission infringed his rights under s. 7 of the Charter and breached the principles of natural justice.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that s. 7 of the Charter does not apply to remedial human rights proceedings because neither the potential consequences nor the nature of the proceedings jeopardize the liberty or security interests of the respondent.

The Board also found no actual prejudice to the respondent's ability to mount a full answer and defence, and no procedural unfairness amounting to a breach of natural justice.

The individual respondent brought a preliminary motion requesting the Board of Inquiry step aside because the substance of settlement negotiations had been disclosed to the Board during related judicial review proceedings.

The Commission argued the disclosure was necessary to respond to the respondent's allegations of delay and failure to pursue settlement.

The Board granted the motion and stepped aside, finding that the disclosure of settlement details was unilateral and unnecessary, and that preserving the public policy of encouraging settlements required adjudicators to remain unaware of such negotiations.