Lynn Harnden

The University of Ottawa applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's award concerning overtime pay under Article 20.4 of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator found that the grievors were entitled to overtime because their evening and weekend work was an add-on to their regular schedule, not a modified or temporarily altered schedule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and findings of fact were reasonable and owed deference.

The applicant, a former teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the school board and her union.

The allegations against the school board related to events between 2009 and 2012, but the application was not filed until July 2014.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the school board for delay, finding the applicant failed to establish a good faith explanation for missing the one-year limitation period.

The allegations against the union for failing to represent her on harassment claims were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence the union's decision was based on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The moving party university brought a motion to set aside a decision of a single judge of the Divisional Court who refused to strike an affidavit filed by the responding party association on an application for judicial review of a labour arbitration award.

The arbitration upheld the termination of a professor for failing to grade students objectively.

The Divisional Court panel found that the motions judge erred in law by admitting the affidavit, as it did not meet the narrow Keeprite exception for admitting new evidence on judicial review.

The motion was granted and the affidavit was struck in its entirety.

The respondent union sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that partially upheld the dismissal of a tenured university professor.

On an interim motion, the university asked the court to exclude an affidavit from counsel who had attended the arbitration hearing, arguing the material was inadmissible on judicial review.

Applying the principles from Keeprite and subsequent authority, the court held that affidavit evidence may be admitted in rare circumstances to demonstrate a complete absence of evidence on an essential point or a breach of natural justice.

Given the absence of a formal record of the arbitration proceedings and concerns regarding reliance on a disputed report, the court found the case fell within the exceptional category.

The affidavit evidence was permitted to be considered by the Divisional Court on the judicial review.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the grounds of disability and sex regarding her termination.

She also filed a grievance alleging dismissal without just cause, which her union referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The respondent agreed with deferral, and no other parties made submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the arbitration to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The Pembroke Civic Hospital applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, following a directive to close and transfer its operations to the Pembroke General Hospital.

The parties disputed the appropriate bargaining unit structure and the identity of the resulting bargaining agents for the intermingled employees.

The Board determined that the broader-based bargaining unit structure already in place at the surviving hospital (the General) was appropriate, noting its 25-year history of success and the general labour relations trend toward broader units.

The Board ordered a representation vote to allow employees to choose their bargaining agent from among all the affected trade unions.

The Christian Labour Association of Canada (CLAC) applied for certification to displace the incumbent union, Local 47, as the bargaining agent for roofers at Covertite Eastern Limited.

Local 47 alleged that the employer and working foremen unlawfully supported CLAC's organizing campaign.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer, motivated by a desire for lower labour rates, clearly communicated its preference for CLAC to the employees and linked future work opportunities to supporting CLAC over Local 47.

Concluding that this constituted employer support under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act, the Board dismissed CLAC's certification application.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent part-time employees at a single movie theatre owned by the respondent.

The respondent argued that a single theatre was not an appropriate bargaining unit and that the unit should encompass all of its theatres in the region or city to avoid undue fragmentation.

The Board reviewed its jurisprudence on single-branch bargaining units and concluded that, while broader units have advantages, requiring a multi-branch unit would create an obstacle to organizing.

The Board found the single theatre to be an appropriate bargaining unit and granted the certificate.

The complainant alleged that the respondent breached a settlement agreement resolving an earlier human rights complaint by failing to recall her with full seniority.

The settlement agreement provided that the complainant would be credited with full seniority and granted recall rights.

However, under the collective agreement, all employees laid off at the relevant time lost their seniority after six months.

The Board of Inquiry found that the settlement agreement did not exempt the complainant from the collective agreement's loss-of-seniority clause, and the respondent acted properly in rehiring her as a new employee.

The complaint was dismissed.

The Board awarded costs to the respondent on a solicitor and client basis, finding that the Commission acted irresponsibly and that false allegations of harassment and reprisals were made in bad faith, causing undue hardship to the respondent.

The applicant union sought certification under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the employer committed unfair labour practices during an organizing campaign.

The employer laid off the primary union organizer, threatened plant closure, and encouraged the formation of an alternative employee committee.

Although the employer later reinstated the organizer and issued a letter recognizing employee rights, the Board found these remedial steps insufficient to erase the chilling effect of the earlier threats.

The Board concluded the employer violated sections 64 and 66, the true wishes of the employees were unlikely to be ascertained, and the union had adequate support for collective bargaining.

The Board exercised its discretion to certify the union without a vote.

One Board member dissented.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Although the union met the statutory requirements for automatic certification, the respondent employer requested a representation vote be delayed due to a projected build-up in its workforce.

The Board applied the criteria for projected build-ups and found that the current employees were sufficiently representative of the expected ongoing workforce, excluding temporary seasonal hires.

The Board declined to direct a representation vote and granted automatic certification.

The union applied for certification and a representation vote was held.

The union won the counted ballots by a margin of five votes.

The employer challenged the status of a homeworker, arguing she was not a part-time employee.

The Board applied the Sydenham Hospital test, converting her piece-rate income to hours using the minimum wage, and found she worked less than 24 hours in a majority of the six weeks preceding the application.

The Board refused the employer's request to renege on a pre-election agreement to exclude foremen from the voting constituency.

Finally, the Board dismissed the employer's argument that union campaign propaganda regarding a profit-sharing plan invalidated the election, finding the statements were not false and did not impair the employees' freedom of choice.

A certificate was issued to the union.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of production employees.

The issue was whether a numerical control programmer shared a community of interest with the production employees or should be excluded as office/technical staff.

The Board applied the Usarco criteria, focusing on conditions of employment, organizational structure, and functional coherence.

Finding that the programmer shared similar compensation, hours, and reporting structures with production workers, the Board concluded there was a community of interest and included the position in the bargaining unit.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal regarding his dismissal during an extension of his probationary period.

The adjudicator had found the dismissal justified for a breach of discipline.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasons of the Federal Court of Appeal.