Mark Wright

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.

The union filed a grievance claiming that the cost of a psychological assessment for a member's child, which resulted in an autism diagnosis, should be reimbursed at 100% as a diagnostic procedure under the collective agreement.

The employer had reimbursed the claim under the capped provision for psychological services.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the assessment was a diagnostic procedure, the collective agreement and a subsequent implementation agreement intended for the cap on psychological services to apply to such procedures when performed by a psychologist.

The grievance was dismissed.

Two hospitals sought judicial review of arbitration awards that found they violated their collective agreements by contracting out the work of Sterile Processing Technicians without issuing layoff notices.

The arbitrators held that the contracting out resulted in a layoff, entitling affected employees to notice and bumping rights.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the applications, finding that the arbitrators' interpretation of the collective agreements was justified, transparent, intelligible, and within the range of acceptable outcomes.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending a grievance arbitration.

The union supported the reactivation, stating that the arbitration was adjourned sine die and it considered the grievances withdrawn.

The respondents opposed, arguing the grievance process was not yet completed.

The Tribunal found that since the arbitration was no longer active and there was no indication it would resume, reactivation was appropriate.

The Tribunal also granted the union intervenor status.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal against her employer and union.

The respondents sought summary dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that the allegations were filed outside the one-year limitation period and that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the allegations had no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant could not establish a link between the respondents' actions and a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal in employment based on disability.

The respondents requested dismissal of the application, arguing that its subject-matter was substantially the same as prior complaints filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission and had been appropriately dealt with in other proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the allegations concerning events up to January 2008 were substantially the same as the prior complaints and were outside its jurisdiction under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed that portion of the application and directed the applicant to provide particulars for the remaining allegations concerning events after January 2008, scheduling a conference call hearing to address the remaining requests to dismiss.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, including discriminatory discharge and reprisal.

The applicant's union also filed grievances regarding unjust discipline and discharge, which were scheduled for arbitration.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration.

Finding substantial overlap between the facts and issues in both proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid the risk of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed human rights applications against her employer and union alleging failure to accommodate her disability.

The respondents requested the applications be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the allegations had been appropriately dealt with through a grievance process that resulted in Minutes of Settlement in 2006 and 2008.

The Tribunal found that the grievance process and subsequent settlements constituted another proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the applications.

The applications were dismissed to avoid duplication of proceedings.

The Ontario College of Teachers held a discipline hearing regarding allegations that the member committed professional misconduct by failing to maintain professional standards, issuing false statements, and engaging in disgraceful conduct.

The member did not attend but entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the College.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and accepted the agreement, which required the member to undergo a psychological assessment, comply with any recommended treatment, and receive a reprimand.

The applicants sought to add and correct the names of the responding parties in multiple applications before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The responding parties consented to the additions and name changes.

The Board ordered the responding parties to post a notice to millwright employees affected by the application and adjourned the matters to be scheduled by the Registrar.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision to correct an error in the appearances listed in its previous decision dated October 22, 2001.

The appearances were amended to correctly reflect the representatives for the applicant and the responding party.

The union alleged that the employer improperly surplussed Parental Support Workers (PSWs) when their duties were reorganized and transferred to other components of the Ministry, including outside the bargaining unit.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined that the employer's reorganization did not inherently violate the collective agreement or section 22(4) of the Public Service Act.

However, the Board found that the union could potentially establish a violation if the largest portion of the PSWs' duties (over 50%) was transferred intact to the Legal Services Branch, or if the transfer of work outside the bargaining unit violated an implied restriction.

The matter was deferred for further evidence and argument.

The applicant union requested a fresh representation vote following a previous Board decision.

The Board ordered the vote to be held on October 26, 2001, for the agreed bargaining unit.

Individuals employed on May 4, 2001, were deemed eligible to vote, with a direction that ballots of individuals no longer employed by the responding party be segregated pending further agreement or order.

The union and the employer both sought reconsideration of a previous Board decision that found the employer committed unfair labour practices during a union organizing campaign.

The employer challenged the Board's refusal to bifurcate the hearing, its decision to allow the union to argue damages, and several specific performance orders, including compulsory union meetings and providing employee contact information.

The union sought to expand the scope of damages, recover legal costs, and adjust the timeline for a fresh representation vote.

The Board dismissed all reconsideration requests, finding no important issues of Board policy or obvious errors that warranted varying the original orders, and directed the employer to immediately provide the union with the employees' home addresses and telephone numbers.

The union brought an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging a sale of business and seeking a related employer declaration after the Red Cross ceased its homemaking operations and the work was reassigned by the Community Care Access Centre (CCAC) to other service providers.

The responding parties brought a Rule 46 request to dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board declined to dismiss the section 69 sale of business application on a prima facie basis, finding that it could not conclude without evidence that only work, rather than part of a business, was transferred.

However, the Board dismissed the section 1(4) related employer application, holding that even if common control and direction existed, it would not exercise its discretion to make a declaration because the CCAC's control was regulatory and statutory, and the relationship was a bona fide subcontracting arrangement rather than an artificial erosion of bargaining rights.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued procedural directions setting hearing dates for November 5 and 6, 2001, and directing the parties to contact the Registrar to fix three additional days.

The Board also directed the parties to resolve outstanding issues regarding the production of documents and requests for particulars, and to file submissions by October 3, 2001, if they are unable to reach an agreement.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint and sought to set aside a representation vote that resulted in a tie.

The union alleged that the employer hired two individuals, who were known gang members, to intimidate and threaten union organizers and supporters with violence, including death threats, if the union won the vote.

The Board found that the employer was responsible for the intimidation, which violated several sections of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board set aside the representation vote, ordered a new vote, and granted extensive remedial relief, including union access to the workplace and reimbursement of organizing costs.

The applicant, a union member, filed an application alleging that his union breached section 75 of the Labour Relations Act by improperly referring other members ahead of him on the out-of-work list to jobs at a Honda assembly plant.

The Board dismissed the application on two grounds.

First, the referrals were not made pursuant to a collective agreement, as the union was not bound by the collective agreement governing the work.

Second, the applicant lacked standing to complain because he was too far down the out-of-work list to have been referred even if the union had followed its procedures correctly.

During a hearing for union certification and an unfair labour practice complaint, the responding employer brought two evidentiary motions.

The employer sought to strike the admitted criminal records of two individuals alleged to have intimidated employees, and to exclude the anticipated testimony of a police intelligence officer regarding the individuals' gang affiliations.

The Board dismissed both motions, finding the evidence arguably relevant to the employees' perceptions and the employer's decision to hire the individuals, while reserving the right to determine the ultimate evidentiary weight at the close of proceedings.

The applicant union filed displacement applications for certification seeking to represent service employees at the Trenton Memorial Hospital site of the Quinte Healthcare Corporation.

The responding hospital and the incumbent union argued the applications were barred by an agreement made under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 (PSLRTA) following a hospital amalgamation.

The Board found that the incumbent union, acting as the bargaining agent for multiple existing bargaining units, could validly enter into a section 20(2) PSLRTA agreement with the employer to consolidate the units.

As a valid agreement was in effect prior to the application date, the applications were barred and dismissed without a representation vote.