Mark Rowlinson

The applicant alleged discrimination when she was not awarded a non-bargaining unit position, which was instead given to a bargaining unit member.

The applicant's union, the United Steelworkers, filed a request to intervene.

The applicant opposed the request, citing confidentiality concerns and arguing the union had no authority over the non-bargaining unit position.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, finding that the union could be affected if the applicant was placed in the position, as it would displace the current bargaining unit member.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to make submissions on whether the successful candidate should be given notice of the application.

At a hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, the respondent objected to the applicant being represented by an unlicensed agent.

The proposed representative argued he fell under a Law Society Act by-law exemption for providing pro bono services to a friend.

However, he acknowledged providing legal services in respect of more than three matters per year, which disqualified him from the exemption.

The Tribunal excluded the representative and adjourned the hearing on consent, issuing procedural directions for document disclosure and witness statements.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that her union did not breach its duty of fair representation under s. 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to pursue her grievance regarding her layoff and dismissal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable, supported by evidence, and did not involve a denial of procedural fairness.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his employer failed to accommodate his disability following a workplace injury, and that his union discriminated against him.

The union requested that the application against it be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the pre-2009 allegations were already addressed in three duty of fair representation complaints before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The Tribunal agreed, finding the OLRB had appropriately dealt with the substance of the allegations by applying human rights principles.

The Tribunal also dismissed the 2009 allegations, noting that a union's mere failure to file a grievance does not constitute discrimination under the Code.

The application against the union was dismissed, but the union was granted intervenor status.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release regarding his employment.

The applicant argued the agreement should be set aside due to economic duress and fraudulent misrepresentation regarding an impending layoff.

The Tribunal found that the applicant freely chose the permanent layoff option and that the respondent did not knowingly mislead him.

The Tribunal concluded that permitting the application to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability following his termination from employment.

The respondent employer requested early dismissal of the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already dealt with in a labour arbitration that upheld the termination.

The Tribunal found that section 45.1 did not apply because the arbitrator did not consider human rights allegations.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process, concluding that all relevant facts were before the arbitrator and allowing the application to proceed would amount to re-litigating the termination.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for being filed outside the one-year time limit.

The applicant argued that the respondents deliberately caused his disability to frustrate his ability to file on time and that he was misunderstood at the preliminary hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to raise any new determinative facts, adduce inconsistent jurisprudence, or establish that the delay was incurred in good faith due to disability-related incapacity.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed because it was filed beyond the one-year time limit prescribed in section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last incident occurred more than a year before the application was filed and that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The employer appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding an arbitrator's award that required the employer to reimburse employees for the Ontario Health Premium under the collective agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the standard of review for the arbitrator's decision is patent unreasonableness.

The Court found the arbitrator's interpretation that the Ontario Health Premium was reasonably and materially similar to the former OHIP premium was not patently unreasonable, and rejected the argument that arbitral inconsistency warrants judicial intervention.

The applicant applied to terminate bargaining rights, and a representation vote was held with the ballot box sealed.

The parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement to open the ballot box and count the ballots.

The Board directed the counting of the ballots on January 3, 2002, and adjourned the previously set hearing dates.

The applicants filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the respondent trade union, alleging it failed to provide sufficient information regarding a pension plan merger prior to a ratification vote and challenging the settlement of a grievance.

The Board dismissed the application for delay, noting it was filed 10 months after the ratification vote without explanation.

The Board found that permitting the application to proceed would be highly prejudicial to the union and the employer, who had continued to manage their collective bargaining relationship based on the ratified agreement.

The Canadian Independent Union of Manufacturing Employees (CIUME) applied for certification to displace the United Steelworkers of America (USW) as the bargaining agent for employees at Waterloo Furniture Components Ltd. The Board first determined that CIUME is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, finding that the steps taken at its founding meeting were sufficient to create a viable organization.

The Board then determined the appropriate bargaining unit, rejecting USW's argument to combine two existing units and holding that the established bargaining structure of the Manitou plant unit was presumptively appropriate for a displacement application.

The employer applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights under s. 65(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the union failed to bargain a renewal collective agreement.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application as untimely under s. 67(2).

The Board found that the timelines in s. 67(2) apply to applications under s. 65(2).

Because a conciliation officer had been appointed and no 'no board' report had been issued, the closed period remained in effect.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

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 union brought an application alleging that the responding party was a successor employer following the purchase of a bankrupt company's rubber division.

The responding party raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the union's bargaining rights did not extend to its location in Elora, Ontario.

The Board found that the union and the predecessor employer had attempted to amend the collective agreement to expand its geographic scope in the event of a sale, but this arrangement effectively created two collective agreements or altered the term of operation without Board consent, violating the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Consequently, the geographic scope clause did not cover the Elora location, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint seeking to enforce a first collective agreement imposed by a board of arbitration, which included a disputed union shop clause.

The responding employer refused to implement the agreement, arguing the arbitration board exceeded its jurisdiction, and filed an application for judicial review.

The Board first ruled that bargaining unit employees who opposed the union shop clause were not entitled to notice or standing in the complaint, as their employment status was not directly affected at this stage.

Ultimately, the Board declined to inquire into the union's complaint, finding that the fundamental issue of the collective agreement's validity was best determined by the Court in the pending judicial review application.

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) brought an application alleging that union leaders and organizations breached section 83 of the Labour Relations Act by encouraging protesters to picket TTC sites during the 'Days of Protest', which would cause TTC employees to engage in an unlawful strike.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that verbal statements constitute 'acts' under section 83 and that the provision's restriction on Charter rights of expression and assembly is demonstrably justified.

The Board concluded that two union leaders breached the Act and issued cease and desist orders restricting picketing at TTC access points to ensure employees could work, while dismissing the application against a third leader and the organizations.

A dissenting member argued that section 83 should not apply to political speech and that the restrictions were not justified under the Charter.

The union filed a certification application but withdrew it before a representation vote upon learning the employer had more employees than anticipated.

The Board permitted the withdrawal without imposing a bar.

The employer sought reconsideration, arguing that section 7(9) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 mandates a bar upon withdrawal.

The Board held that section 7(9) grants discretion to determine whether to impose a bar and its length.

Finding no abuse of process and that employee wishes had not yet been tested, the Board declined to impose a bar.

A certificate was issued in the union's subsequent successful application.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether an employer can request a final offer vote under section 40 of the Labour Relations Act after first agreement arbitration has been initiated under section 41.

The union argued that because section 41(13) prohibits strikes or lock-outs once first agreement arbitration is initiated, the precondition for a final offer vote cannot be met.

The employer argued that the provisions could operate simultaneously.

The Board held that the opening words of section 40 establish a precondition that strike or lock-out activity must be available.

Since section 41(13) eliminates the possibility of a strike or lock-out, an employer cannot request a final offer vote after first agreement arbitration has been initiated.

The union applied for certification.

The employer alleged that the union's organizing campaign was tainted by the involvement of managerial employees and by material misrepresentations made by a union organizer regarding employees' ability to withdraw their membership.

The Board held that the managerial employees were acting contrary to the employer's interests, which did not trigger the statutory bar to certification or cast doubt on the voluntariness of the membership evidence.

The Board also found that the union organizer did not make the alleged misrepresentations.

The Board certified the union based on the documentary evidence of membership.