6 total
Board retains jurisdiction to issue interim orders during hearings but denies union's request regarding firefighter scheduling.
The appellant union appealed an inspector's decision finding that the City had complied with an earlier order regarding firefighter response protocols.
The union sought an interim order requiring the City to schedule two full-time firefighters at all times or instruct them not to respond to calls until two firefighters were on the vehicle.
The City raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction to issue an interim order under s. 61(3.4) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act once a hearing had commenced.
The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the hearing and consultation processes are not mutually exclusive.
However, the Board dismissed the request for an interim order, concluding that the union failed to demonstrate compelling grounds to interfere with the inspector's decision or that the firefighters' health and safety would be jeopardized without the order, given the City's standard operating procedures for one-person crews.
City's OHSA appeal dismissed upon withdrawal; timetable set for Association's interim order request regarding firefighter staffing.
The Board heard two appeals under section 61 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act regarding orders issued by an inspector concerning firefighter staffing.
The City withdrew its appeal after the inspector issued a subsequent decision finding the City in compliance.
The Board dismissed the City's appeal.
The Association maintained its appeal of the inspector's subsequent decision and requested an interim order regarding minimum staffing levels.
The Board established a timetable for written submissions on the interim order request and scheduled hearing dates for the Association's appeal.
OLRB deferred OHSA reprisal complaint to Human Rights Commission as essence was racial discrimination.
The applicant filed a complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging reprisals for raising health and safety concerns, which included allegations of a racially poisoned work environment and physical hazards.
The responding party brought a preliminary motion requesting the Board defer to the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
The Board found that the essence of the complaint was racial discrimination and harassment, which falls squarely within the specialized jurisdiction of the Commission under the Human Rights Code.
The Board exercised its discretion under section 50(3) of the OHSA to decline to inquire into the matter and dismissed the application.
Admission of managerial employees into membership does not preclude an organization from being a trade union.
The applicant trade union sought a declaration that it was the successor trade union to an association.
The responding party employer argued the association was not a "trade union" under the Labour Relations Act because it permitted managerial employees to be members.
The Board held that the admission of non-employees into membership does not preclude an organization from being considered a trade union under the Act.
The Board directed the parties to a pre-hearing conference to resolve remaining issues.
Union's bargaining rights terminated following hospital laboratory transfer due to intermingling and inappropriate proposed bargaining unit.
The applicant union alleged that a sale of a business occurred when the predecessor hospital transferred its laboratory services to the successor hospital.
The hospitals conceded the sale but argued that the operations and employees were intermingled, justifying the termination of the union's bargaining rights.
The Board found that intermingling had occurred and that the union's proposed bargaining unit, limited to the 'stat' laboratory at the predecessor hospital, was not appropriate due to the integration of the services.
Given that the unionized employees constituted a small minority of the successor's paramedical staff, the Board declined to order a representation vote and declared the union's bargaining rights terminated effective the date of the sale.
Inspectors and Instructors exercise managerial functions and are excluded from the bargaining unit.
The applicant union sought to include Inspectors and Instructors in the bargaining unit.
The responding party employer argued they exercised managerial functions and should be excluded under section 1(3) of the Labour Relations Act.
The Board applied the effective control test and found that Inspectors have significant disciplinary authority and Instructors have the power to effectively recommend the retention or dismissal of probationary employees.
The Board concluded that both classifications exercise managerial functions and are excluded from the bargaining unit.
