Mary Cornish

The Service Employees International Union applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for a determination of whether the Motherhouse of the Sisters of St. Joseph is a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA).

The Motherhouse contains an infirmary that receives government funding and provides care to sick and elderly sisters.

The Board, following its previous decision in Maison Mere, found that the Motherhouse is not operated for the purpose of providing a home for the aged or a hospital, but rather serves as the communal home and nerve centre for the religious order.

The Board advised the Minister that the HLDAA does not apply to the Motherhouse.

A dissenting Board member would have found the facility to be a hospital.

The Board determined the bargaining unit structure following the amalgamation of four psychiatric and addiction facilities into the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The Board ordered two bargaining units: one for registered and graduate nurses, and one for all other non-managerial employees.

The Board also held that a non-union option must be included on the ballot for any unit where 40% or more of the employees were Crown employees prior to the changeover date.

The geographic scope was limited to the City of Toronto and existing Mississauga employees.

The Board declined to order the disclosure of employee addresses and telephone numbers to the unions due to safety concerns.

The parties requested an adjournment sine die.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request, noting that the matter would be dismissed without further notice after one year unless a party requested it be rescheduled.

A group of Registered Practical Nurses (RPNs) filed a re-Application challenging a deemed approved pay equity plan negotiated by their union and the hospital.

The union brought a motion to dismiss the re-Application.

The Tribunal found that the RPNs failed to meet their pleading obligations by not detailing allegations that the plan failed to comply with the minimum standards of Part 1 of the Pay Equity Act.

Concluding that the applicants had a fundamental misunderstanding of the Act and that there was no prima facie case to meet, the Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the re-Application.

Following the merger of three hospitals, the parties agreed that a sale of a business and intermingling of employees had occurred under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

The parties disputed whether the amalgamated hospital should maintain separate bargaining units for maintenance employees and operating engineers, as existed at some predecessor sites, or integrate them into a broader service unit.

The Board determined that a comprehensive service unit, including maintenance employees and operating engineers, was the appropriate bargaining unit structure for the merged hospital, emphasizing the policy preference for broader-based bargaining units to avoid fragmentation.

The applicant union applied to set aside a Review Officer's order that identified the Manager of Physical Operations as the comparable male job class for registered nurses under the Pay Equity Act.

The parties had used a point factor job evaluation system, and the Review Officer had selected the male job class closest in points.

The Tribunal panel split three ways.

The Chair revoked the order, rejecting the closest male comparator and banding approaches, and directed the use of a male wage line approach to redress systemic gender discrimination.

Two members dissented from the Chair's jurisdictional authority to order a wage line approach.

One dissenting member found that the highest paid lower valued male job class should be the comparator under section 6(3)(b) of the Act.

The other dissenting member upheld the Review Officer's original order.

The complainant, who is legally blind, was denied financial assistance for a visual aid device by the Ministry of Health because he was over 30 years old.

After the Court of Appeal found this age restriction discriminatory, the matter of damages was referred back to the Board of Inquiry.

The Board awarded $7,000 in general damages for the loss of the human right, which included $2,000 specifically for the ten-year delay in resolving the complaint.

The Board also awarded $3,000 for mental anguish, finding the Ministry's institutionalized policy of age discrimination to be wilful.

Interest was ordered on $8,000 of the award.

The City of Brampton applied to settle a pay equity plan under s. 17(1) of the Pay Equity Act.

The City sought to amend its application to add issues regarding the documentation and replication of job ratings by the Review Officer.

The Association opposed the amendment and moved to dismiss the remaining issue regarding appropriate male comparators.

The Tribunal declined to allow the amendment, finding it would undermine the efficiency of the proceedings and that the City misconceived the role of the Review Officer and the Tribunal.

The Tribunal also dismissed the remaining issue, finding that all appropriate male comparators had been considered.

The proceeding was terminated.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal heard preliminary motions regarding an application by the City of Brampton challenging a Review Officer's order.

The Association moved to dismiss the application for failure to provide adequate particulars.

The Tribunal struck paragraph 23 of the City's application, finding that the City's allegation that the Review Officer failed to follow a prior agreement between the parties did not disclose a prima facie violation of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal held that a Review Officer acting under s. 16(2) is not bound by the parties' prior procedural agreements and is not required to survey all male job classes once appropriate comparators are identified.

The Tribunal also ruled that pay equity comparisons should generally be based on data as of the statutory effective date or up to the mandatory posting date.

The applicant unions alleged that the Red Cross and various home care agencies and service providers violated the replacement worker provisions of the Labour Relations Act when clients were reassigned to other agencies during a lawful strike by Red Cross homemakers.

The Board found that the other agencies were not acting on behalf of the Red Cross and were not employers of the striking workers, dismissing the replacement worker complaints.

However, the Board found that the Red Cross violated sections 65, 67(c), and 71 of the Act by making intimidating statements to employees, threatening job loss if they exercised their right to strike.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied to the Tribunal requesting an order that the Brant County Health Unit direct more than one percent of its annual payroll towards pay equity adjustments to accelerate the closing of a large wage gap.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that under section 13 of the Pay Equity Act, it has no discretion to order an employer to spend more than one percent of its payroll per year on pay equity adjustments, except in specific circumstances not present in this case.

The Tribunal directed the employer to post the amended pay equity plan and make adjustments in accordance with the statutory framework.

The applicant employer brought a preliminary motion alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias, arguing that the unexplained resignation of an employer representative in another case suggested a lack of adjudicative independence at the Tribunal.

The majority of the Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the circumstances were too attenuated and remote to raise a reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the Tribunal's history demonstrated independent decision-making.

The dissenting member would have found a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the institutional setting and the lack of explanation for the member's resignation.

The applicant union filed complaints alleging that the SKEW job evaluation system proposed by the respondent hospitals was not gender neutral and failed to accurately capture and value nursing work.

The Tribunal found that the SKEW system's job fact sheet and valuing tool did not meet the standard of gender neutrality required by the Pay Equity Act, as they failed to make visible and appropriately value the complex skills, effort, responsibilities, and working conditions inherent in nursing.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to negotiate and design a new gender neutral comparison system tailored to accurately capture the job content of the nursing and male comparator job classes in the hospitals.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied for reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision and sought remedies for the Employer's failure to comply with an order to negotiate a pay equity plan.

The Employer admitted non-compliance, citing financial constraints.

The Tribunal varied its original order, finding that the Employer's failure to bargain made the previous remedy inappropriate.

The Tribunal directed a review officer to prepare the pay equity plan, starting with the Union's proposed comparison system.

The Tribunal also ordered the Employer to pay compensatory damages, including the costs of pre-testing the system and the review officer's costs in preparing the plan, but declined to state a case for contempt or award legal costs.

One member dissented on the extent of the compensatory damages.

The complainant alleged racial discrimination in employment against the East York Board of Education and individual respondents.

During the hearing, the complainant engaged in disruptive conduct and refused to provide an undertaking to the Board of Inquiry that he would answer questions directly and cease making derogatory comments.

Consequently, the Board ruled that the hearing could not proceed in an orderly manner and dismissed the complaint for lack of evidence.

The respondents then sought costs under s. 40(6) of the Human Rights Code.

The Board found that the respondents suffered undue hardship and ordered the Ontario Human Rights Commission to pay solicitor-client costs of $108,230.42, plus $10,027.60 for time spent by one of the respondents preparing for the hearing.

Peat Marwick requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision denying it intervenor status in a pay equity dispute between the Ontario Nurses' Association and Women's College Hospital.

The Tribunal held that its discretion to reconsider decisions under s. 30(2) of the Pay Equity Act should only be exercised in compelling and extraordinary circumstances to preserve the finality of decisions.

Finding no new evidence, change in circumstances, or error of law, the majority dismissed the request.

One member dissented, finding that the consolidation of multiple similar applications constituted a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant reconsideration.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied to have the City of London and the County of Middlesex declared the employer of the nurses at the Board of Health Middlesex-London Health Unit for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act.

Applying the Haldimand-Norfolk test, the Tribunal found that the Health Unit has overall financial responsibility, responsibility for compensation practices, and the core activity of providing public health programs independently.

The Tribunal concluded that the Board of Health Middlesex-London Health Unit is the employer, and dismissed the application.

During a hearing regarding the employer's alleged failure to negotiate a gender-neutral comparison system and pay equity plan, William M. Mercer Limited applied for intervenor status.

Mercer sought to protect its commercial interests, arguing that allegations of gender bias in its job evaluation methodology could negatively affect its business.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that Mercer was not a party under section 32(1) of the Pay Equity Act, 1987, and had only a commercial and incidental interest rather than a direct legal interest in the proceedings.

Granting intervenor status would unnecessarily lengthen and complicate the hearing.

The Ontario Nurses' Association and Women's College Hospital filed cross-applications regarding the negotiation of a pay equity plan and the gender neutrality of the proposed job evaluation system.

Stevenson, Kellogg, Ernst & Whinney (SKEW), the creator of the job evaluation system, sought intervenor status, arguing its commercial interests and reputation could be adversely affected.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal denied the intervention, finding that SKEW's interest was merely commercial and incidental to the main issue between the employer and the union.

The Tribunal also confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the complaints.

The Applicant union sought to introduce expert opinion evidence from Dr. Pat Armstrong on women's work and gender bias in a pay equity dispute.

The Respondent employer objected to the witness's qualifications and the relevance of the proposed evidence.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal qualified Dr. Armstrong as an expert in the nature of women's work in the health care sector and critiquing methodologies.

However, the Tribunal limited the scope of her testimony to evaluating the specific methodology proposed by the Respondent and its potential gender effects, excluding general commentary on the Mercer comparison system or the parties' bargaining history.