Lewis Gottheil

The appellant police officer was charged with major offences under the Code of Offences under the Police Act.

He objected that the presiding officer did not constitute an independent and impartial tribunal as required by section 11(d) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, applying its concurrent decision in R. v. Wigglesworth to hold that section 11 of the Charter does not apply to police disciplinary proceedings because they are neither criminal in nature nor involve true penal consequences.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer laid off four employees due to their union organizing activities.

The employer claimed the layoffs were for legitimate business reasons due to a downturn in sales.

The Board found that the employer failed to discharge the reverse onus under section 89(5) of the Labour Relations Act, as the timing of the layoffs immediately followed the employer's discovery of the organizing campaign and the employer's evidence lacked credibility.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the laid-off employees with compensation and directed the posting of a notice.

The Board also granted the union's application for certification, finding it had the support of more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether certain supervisors exercised managerial functions.

The respondent employer argued the application was untimely and should not proceed because the parties were engaged in a lawful strike and the supervisors were performing production work.

The Board held that the parties were 'in the course of bargaining' and the application was timely.

The Board noted that evidence of duties performed during the strike was irrelevant, but directed an officer to inquire into the supervisors' regular duties and responsibilities.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 57 of the Labour Relations Act to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The Board determined that the application was timely, finding that a prior memorandum of agreement established the true term of the collective agreement.

The Board accepted the employee petition as a voluntary signification that they no longer wished to be represented by the union.

Finding that at least 45 per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit had signed the petition, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

One Board member dissented.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent employer failed to comply with an oral settlement of a prior grievance.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction to enforce an oral settlement.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that it has jurisdiction to enforce oral settlements and that there is no requirement for such settlements to be in writing.

On the merits, the Board found that the respondent's Installation Manager had apparent authority to enter into the settlement on behalf of the employer.

The Board directed the respondent to pay the agreed settlement amounts.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

At the hearing, the union raised a preliminary issue, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the grievance on its merits because it had been settled, and asked the Board to enforce the settlement.

The employer disputed the settlement and argued the Board retained jurisdiction.

After reviewing the authorities presented, the Board refused the union's preliminary motion, advising it could either pursue the original grievance on its merits or withdraw it to file a new grievance alleging failure to comply with the settlement.

The union elected to withdraw the grievance.

The complainant union filed a work assignment complaint regarding electrical installation work.

The respondent employer and intervening unions challenged the Board's jurisdiction under section 91(14) of the Labour Relations Act, arguing the collective agreements required such disputes to be referred to the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board.

The complainant argued the respondent was not bound by the provincial agreement.

The respondent requested a related employer declaration under section 1(4) to be declared a single employer with its unionized subsidiary.

The Board found the preconditions for section 1(4) were met and exercised its discretion to make the declaration, binding the respondent to the provincial agreement.

Consequently, the Board held it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint under section 91(14) and dismissed it.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed convictions for insubordination arising from three exchanges with a superior officer.

The first charge had been dismissed at trial.

On appeal, the Commission allowed the appeal on the second charge, finding the evidence unclear as to when the disobedience occurred since the superior had acquiesced to the appellant's request for more time.

The Commission dismissed the appeal on the third charge, finding that the appellant's manner of speaking to his superior, which included profanity and complaints about being put in a difficult position, was insolent, rebellious, and disrespectful.

The complainant Paperworkers' Union filed a complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the assignment of work involving the operation of motorized equipment not requiring an operating engineers ticket at the respondent employer's mill.

The employer had assigned the work to the Operating Engineers' Union.

The Board considered the historical context, technological changes, area practice, and previous Board jurisprudence.

The Board directed that the work be assigned to the Paperworkers' Union, conditional on an undertaking that existing employees belonging to the Operating Engineers' Union be permitted to work within the Paperworkers' Union's jurisdiction while continuing to pay dues to their current union.

The Bricklayers filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of drywall taping work at a shopping mall construction project in Kingston.

The employer, Brunswick Drywall, had a collective agreement with the Painters but assigned the work to the Bricklayers at the general contractor's instruction.

The Board considered area practice, noting that the Bricklayers had performed drywall taping almost exclusively in the Kingston area for many years.

The Board confirmed the assignment of the work to the Bricklayers for this specific project.