6 total
Employer ordered to disclose compensation and job description data for non-bargaining unit employees for pay equity negotiations.
The applicant union sought disclosure of information regarding employees outside the bargaining unit to assist in negotiating a pay equity plan, as there were no male comparators within the unit.
The respondent employer refused to provide compensation schedules and job descriptions, arguing they were not yet relevant, and refused to provide names citing confidentiality.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that the employer must disclose job titles, gender composition, compensation schedules, and existing job descriptions for all positions outside the bargaining unit to enable informed and rational bargaining.
The Tribunal declined to order the disclosure of employee names at this preliminary stage.
Board determines employee status of disputed workers and grants union certification in construction industry.
The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.
The Board had to determine whether five disputed individuals were employees in the bargaining unit on the date of application.
The Board reconsidered a previous ruling and allowed the respondent to make unrestricted submissions regarding the list of employees.
Applying the test from E & E Seegmiller, the Board examined the work performed by each individual on the application date.
The Board concluded that one individual was performing carpentry work and was included in the unit, while the other four were not.
Finding that the applicant had the requisite membership support, the Board issued certificates to the applicant.
Intervener granted status in certification application based on membership evidence; employer bound by prior agreement on employee list.
The applicant trade union applied for certification for a unit of carpenters employed by the respondent.
The intervener trade union sought to participate, arguing it already represented the employees under existing collective agreements or, alternatively, had membership evidence for at least one affected employee.
The Board found the existing agreements did not cover carpenters but granted the intervener status based on membership evidence filed at the hearing.
The Board also held the respondent could not resile from a prior written agreement with the applicant regarding the list of employees in the bargaining unit, though the intervener remained free to challenge the list.
Application for certification dismissed for insufficient membership support; Board abandons 'representative period' test for construction industry.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of painters and drywall tapers employed by the respondent.
The parties disputed the employment status of two individuals, whom the respondent claimed were independent contractors, and the inclusion of three others based on the work they performed.
The Board applied the fourfold and organizational tests to find the two individuals were employees.
The Board also found the other three individuals were properly included in the bargaining unit as they spent a majority of their time doing bargaining unit work on the application date.
The Board announced it would no longer use a 'representative period' to determine bargaining unit inclusion in the construction industry, restricting the inquiry to the application date.
As the union had less than forty-five percent membership support in the resulting unit, the application was dismissed.
Employer's refusal to provide union with a copy of the benefit Master Plan violated section 64.
The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to provide a physical copy of the Master Plan detailing welfare benefits under the collective agreement.
The employer argued that providing access to the document at its head office and answering questions by phone was sufficient.
The Board held that the refusal to provide a copy interfered with the union's ability to represent its members and fulfill its duty of fair representation under section 68.
The Board also declined to defer the matter to arbitration, noting that the complaint raised a novel issue regarding statutory rights under section 64.
The employer was directed to provide the union with a copy of the Master Plan.
Sex discrimination complaint dismissed; wage freeze for female office workers was based on market survey, not sex.
Five female office employees filed a complaint alleging sex discrimination after their employer, F.W. Woolworth Ltd., froze their wages while granting increases to other staff, including male warehouse workers.
The employer argued the freeze was based on an informal wage survey showing the complainants were paid above market rates for their positions.
The Board of Inquiry applied the Supreme Court's framework for adverse effect discrimination and found that while the complainants were treated differently, there was no evidence linking the wage freeze to their sex.
The complaint was dismissed as the complainants failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
