7 total
Applications to terminate bargaining rights dismissed because no employees were working within the bargaining unit's geographic scope.
The applicants filed applications to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union with respect to the intervenor employer.
The sole issue was whether any employees were working within the geographic scope of the relevant collective agreements on the application date.
The employees were working in St. Thomas, which is outside the geographic scope of the agreements (Board Area 8 and Simcoe County).
The Board found that the travel allowance provisions and the union's issuance of clearance slips did not extend the geographic scope of the bargaining unit.
As there were no employees at work in the bargaining unit on the application date, the applications were dismissed.
Related employer application dismissed as competitive bidding process did not constitute labour relations mischief.
The applicant union sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, arguing that the responding party service providers and the community care access centre constituted a single employer.
The responding parties brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application, arguing that even if the prerequisites of section 1(4) were met, the Board should not exercise its discretion to grant the declaration.
The Board agreed, finding that the loss of work by the unionized service provider was due to a government-mandated competitive bidding process, not a scheme to defeat bargaining rights.
The Board concluded there was no labour relations mischief to remedy and dismissed the application without a hearing on the merits.
Employer breached duty to bargain in good faith by misleading union about intent to appeal order.
The Union alleged that the Employer failed to bargain in good faith during pay equity negotiations and brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the Employer's application regarding a Review Officer's order on gender dominance.
The Tribunal refused to dismiss the Employer's application for delay or abuse of process, finding that meaningful bargaining had occurred.
However, the Tribunal found that the Employer failed to bargain in good faith by continuing to negotiate as if it accepted the Review Officer's first order while secretly intending to appeal it, thereby misleading the Union.
The Tribunal reserved on the quantum of compensation for wasted time and expense in evaluating job classes.
Costs against Human Rights Commission denied as it reasonably investigated a bad faith complaint.
The Board of Inquiry issued a supplementary decision regarding whether costs should be awarded against the Ontario Human Rights Commission after dismissing a complaint found to have been made in bad faith.
The Board held that under section 40(6) of the Human Rights Code, costs may be awarded if a complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith, and the Commission was aware or should have been aware of this fact.
The Board found that the Commission conducted a reasonable investigation and could not have known of the complainant's bad faith until the hearing.
The request for costs was dismissed.
Employer's application for prospective interpretation of red-circling provisions dismissed as premature.
The employer applied to the Tribunal seeking a prospective interpretation of the red-circling provisions under s. 8(1)(d) of the Pay Equity Act.
The union raised a preliminary objection that the employer had not made out a prima facie case and that the matter was not ripe for adjudication.
The Tribunal agreed with the union, finding that the application was premature because a sufficient factual basis was required to determine if the statutory requirements for red-circling were met.
The Tribunal declined to render a decision in the abstract.
Unfair labour practice complaint dismissed as the matter was a jurisdictional dispute over work assignment.
The Carpenters' Union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer and the Labourers' Union conspired to undermine its bargaining rights by assigning formwork to labourers instead of carpenters.
The Labourers' Union also applied for certification to displace the Carpenters' bargaining rights.
The Board dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint, finding that the matter was essentially a jurisdictional dispute over work assignment rather than a derogation of bargaining rights, which should be resolved under the jurisdictional dispute provisions of the Act.
Regarding the certification application, the Board found that at least three persons were employed as carpenters on the application date, entitling the Labourers' Union to a pre-hearing vote.
Co-worker liable for racial harassment; employer not vicariously liable as it did not condone conduct.
Two employees filed human rights complaints alleging racial discrimination and harassment.
One complainant was subjected to racial slurs and physical assaults by a co-worker.
The Board found the co-worker personally liable for racial harassment but dismissed the complaint against the employer, finding the employer did not condone the conduct and had disciplined the co-worker.
The second complainant, a union steward, alleged his termination was racially motivated.
The Board dismissed this complaint, finding the termination was based on the employer's belief that the complainant had counselled a work slow-down and his history of disruptive behaviour, rather than any racial motivation.
