85 total
Surplussed employee electing pension bridging did not knowingly waive pre-notice assignment and bumping rights.
The Association filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to directly assign or provide bumping opportunities to a surplussed employee.
The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the employee waived all such rights when he elected the pension bridging option to retire under Surplus Factor 80.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that the collective agreement provisions for Surplus Factor 80 and pension bridging were independent.
The employee had no rights to direct assignment or bumping during the notice period because he utilized pension bridging.
However, based on the specific communications and the employer's failure to confirm pension eligibility as required, the employee did not knowingly waive his rights to direct assignment and bumping during the pre-notice period.
The preliminary objection was upheld in part.
Preliminary directions issued for scheduling and document exchange in consolidated grievance arbitration.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued preliminary directions regarding the order and manner of proceeding for grievances filed by AMAPCEO and ALOC concerning the termination of the grievor's employment and articles.
The Vice-Chair directed the employer to advise if it agreed to have the grievances heard together, scheduled a preliminary motion by ALOC, and set out a timeline for the exchange of pleadings, documents, and particulars.
Human rights application alleging racial discrimination and reprisal in the workplace dismissed for lack of evidence.
The applicant, an armoured guard of South-Asian descent, alleged that his employer and a supervisor discriminated against him based on race and ethnic origin, and reprised against him for raising human rights concerns.
The allegations centered on a December 2010 incident where the supervisor told him to stop chatting, and a January 2011 incident where the supervisor accused him of urinating on a client's washroom floor.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as there was insufficient evidence to infer that the supervisor's actions were tainted by racial bias.
The reprisal claims were also dismissed, as the Tribunal found no intention to retaliate in the issuance of a verbal warning or in a manager's informal conversation with the applicant.
Employer's preliminary motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction denied; Board remained seized under settlement.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the Association's claim that the employer failed to comply with a Memorandum of Settlement.
The employer argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the settlement did not explicitly incorporate the dispute resolution mechanism from the collective agreement.
The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the settlement explicitly stated the Board remained seized with respect to its implementation, interpretation, and remedial aspects, thereby conferring jurisdiction to hear the non-compliance claim.
Association ordered to provide disclosure information by a specified deadline to facilitate mediation.
The employer alleged that the Association failed to provide a succinct written summary regarding the complainant's eligibility for identified positions, as agreed upon in a disclosure protocol.
The employer sought an order compelling the Association to provide the information by a specific date.
The Association opposed the order, asserting it was making best efforts.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Association to provide the information by June 14, 2013, noting the importance of timely disclosure for effective mediation.
Motion to enforce settlement dismissed as no consensus ad idem was reached before offer revocation.
The Association brought a motion seeking a declaration that a grievance regarding the complainant's termination had been settled during mediation.
The parties had agreed on most terms, but the employer insisted on a 'no application clause' which the Association rejected.
The Association made a counter-offer excluding the clause, which the employer rejected before ultimately withdrawing its offer to settle.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that no consensus ad idem had been reached on the terms of a settlement before the employer revoked its offer.
Consent order issued directing employer compliance with Minutes of Settlement.
The parties resolved a grievance by Minutes of Settlement and requested a consent order.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to comply with the settlement and remained seized with respect to its interpretation, application, or implementation.
Pay for performance bonuses are work-driven and may be prorated for employees on pregnancy or parental leave.
The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer failed to properly implement pay for performance bonuses and merit pay increases.
The parties settled most issues but disagreed on whether employees on pregnancy or parental leave should receive unprorated pay for performance bonuses, and whether a clarity note regarding leaves of absence greater than three months was ambiguous.
The arbitrator determined she had the jurisdiction of a rights arbitrator, found no ambiguity in the clarity note, and held that the pay for performance bonus is a work-driven benefit that requires attendance.
Consequently, the Employer was entitled to prorate the bonus for employees absent on pregnancy or parental leave.
Board ordered consolidation of related files despite responding union's lack of consent.
The applicant requested the consolidation of a newly filed application under section 66 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 with two existing files.
Despite the responding union's lack of consent, the Board ordered the consolidation of the files.
The Board also scheduled a hearing to address preliminary objections raised by the responding union.
Union certification granted as employees were performing construction work not covered by existing maintenance agreement.
The applicant union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The responding party argued that the employees who cast ballots were not performing construction work and were covered by an existing collective agreement with SEIU Local 210.
The Board found that the employees were erecting a permanent steel stud wall, which constitutes construction work, not maintenance.
The Board also determined that the SEIU collective agreement only covered maintenance work and therefore did not bar the application.
As more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board ordered the issuance of certificates for the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector and all other sectors in the relevant geographic area.
Board orders responding parties to pay $97,900 for breaching a settlement agreement.
The applicant union filed an application under section 96(7) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding parties failed to comply with a settlement agreement.
The responding parties did not attend the hearing.
The Board found that the responding parties breached the settlement by failing to pay the outstanding balance of $89,000.
The Board ordered the responding parties to pay the outstanding amount plus a 10 percent penalty, totaling $97,900, as stipulated in the settlement agreement.
Union certification granted following a successful representation vote.
The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit of employees of the responding party.
Following a representation vote in which more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.
Successor rights legislation does not bar a union from applying for certification to expand its geographic bargaining rights.
The union applied for certification to represent carpenters employed by the newly amalgamated Greater Essex County District School Board.
The school board argued the application was barred by the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997, which restricted the geographic scope of the union's successor bargaining rights to the City of Windsor.
The Board held that the successor rights provisions did not bar a regular certification application to expand bargaining rights.
The Board also found that recent amendments excluding school boards as 'non-construction employers' did not apply retroactively to this pending application.
The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit, excluding employees outside the ICI sector already covered by subsisting agreements, and referred the matter to resolve the voters' list.
Carpenters union failed to prove entitlement to represent pieceworkers when voluntary recognition agreements were signed.
The Labourers union and several individual employees challenged the validity of collective agreements entered into between the Carpenters union and five trim carpentry companies based on voluntary recognition.
The challenges were brought under section 66 of the Labour Relations Act, which requires the incumbent union to prove it was entitled to represent the employees at the time the agreements were signed.
The Board found that the Carpenters union's evidence of employee support, consisting of stale membership cards and a poorly attended ratification vote held six months prior to the agreements, was insufficient to meet the statutory onus.
The Board declined to exercise its discretion to dismiss the applications or order a representation vote, and rejected arguments that individual employees were denied natural justice.
Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed; union's decision not to reopen collective agreement was reasonable.
The applicant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to hold a formal vote of all members on whether to reopen the collective agreement following the announced closure of the employer's facility.
The union had held a meeting where a show of hands supported the leadership's position to allow the agreement to automatically renew.
The Board dismissed the application, finding that it had no authority to oversee the union's internal processes and that the union's decision not to reopen the agreement was reasonable and not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.
Statutory amendment to definition of employer does not apply retroactively to pending certification application.
The applicant filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
Subsequently, the definition of employer in section 126 of the Act was amended.
The responding party argued that the new definition should apply, while the applicant argued that the definition in effect at the time of filing should apply.
The Board held that the definition of employer as it existed on the date of filing applies, as there was no clear legislative intent to give the amendment retroactive effect.
Application dismissed; section 89 does not grant Board jurisdiction over de facto union supervision after trusteeship expires.
The applicants alleged that the international union breached section 89 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by continuing to exercise de facto supervision and control over the local union after the initial 12-month trusteeship period had expired without an extension from the Board.
The Board dismissed the application for failing to disclose a prima facie case.
The Board held that under section 89(2), a trusteeship automatically terminates after 12 months unless extended by the Board, and the Board has no jurisdiction under that section to inquire into or regulate de facto control exercised without a legally imposed trusteeship.
Union certified despite organizer signing membership cards as a witness without observing the signatures.
The applicant union applied for certification.
During the hearing, it was revealed that the union's main organizer had signed membership cards as a 'witness' without actually observing the employees signing them.
The employer and objecting employees argued this irregularity, along with allegations of intimidation and coercion by the organizer, should invalidate the membership evidence.
The Board found that the organizer's misrepresentation on the cards was innocent and did not undermine the reliability of the evidence.
The Board also dismissed the allegations of intimidation, finding no objective basis for them.
The Board certified the union, with one member dissenting on the reliability of the membership evidence.
Applications for union membership are sufficient to establish membership support for a pre-hearing representation vote.
The union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote under section 9 of the Labour Relations Act.
The employer objected, arguing that the union's documentary evidence consisted only of applications for membership, not actual membership, and that some employees had subsequently withdrawn their support.
The Board held that for the purposes of section 9, an application for membership is sufficient to establish membership support, consistent with long-standing Board practice and legislative intent.
The Board further held that letters withdrawing support do not constitute a revocation of membership.
The Board directed that the ballots from the pre-hearing vote be counted.
Board limits inquiry into union membership evidence to protect secrecy under the Labour Relations Act.
During a hearing for a union certification application and unfair labour practice complaint, an issue arose regarding the witnessing of union membership cards.
The union requested the Board not inquire further into the issue.
The Board ruled it would hear evidence on the witnessing of the cards but declined to conduct a broad inquiry into the Form A-4 declaration, citing the need to protect the secrecy of membership evidence under section 113 of the Labour Relations Act.
The Board also admitted new evidence from objecting employees regarding additional cards, despite late disclosure, but adjourned that portion to allow the union time to prepare.
