Melissa Kronick

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal on the basis of race, colour, and sex in his employment.

The allegations were previously heard and dismissed by an arbitrator following a seven-day hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in the arbitration process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, specifically a failure to accommodate.

She also filed concurrent grievances through her union.

The union requested intervenor status, which the Tribunal granted.

The respondent requested that the Application be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

Finding substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the Application and the active grievances, the Tribunal deferred the Application.

The applicants brought a motion for an interim stay of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision pending judicial review.

The applicants argued that the Board's decision lacked procedural fairness due to inadequate notice, refusal of an adjournment, improper production orders, and unconstitutional reverse onus provisions.

The court applied the three-part test for an interim stay and found that the applicants failed to establish a strong prima facie case for review.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent union.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and place of origin following his termination and a report made to the College of Nurses.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the mandatory report to the College did not constitute reprisal and that the applicant provided no evidence to support his claims of discrimination.

Furthermore, the applicant had previously signed a full and final release as part of a grievance settlement, barring further claims.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the City of Toronto.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing and provided notice to the applicant via email and regular mail.

The applicant failed to attend the commencement of the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that it was deemed abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and place of origin after his union removed him from his positions as shop steward and human rights committee member, and failed to take his grievance to arbitration.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided only bald allegations without any factual foundation linking the union's actions to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination and harassment by his supervisor.

The respondents requested early dismissal, arguing the applicant had signed a full and final release in November 2008 resolving two grievances, including one for age discrimination.

The Tribunal found that proceeding with allegations of events prior to the November 2008 settlement would be an abuse of process.

Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the application were struck to the extent they related to events preceding the settlement, while the remainder of the application was allowed to proceed.

The applicant, a Municipal Standards Officer, alleged racial discrimination after being denied a transfer back to his preferred office location.

He claimed that a less senior employee was transferred instead of him due to discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the transfer of the less senior employee was done in accordance with the collective agreement's temporary-to-permanent conversion process, and there was no evidence of racial discrimination.

Other allegations of discrimination were also dismissed as they were either out of time or lacked any connection to the applicant's race.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent an 'all employee' bargaining unit of the responding party's employees in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

The responding party argued that the bargaining unit should be restricted to a specific street address and limited to a departmental unit, given the existing departmental bargaining structure at the facility.

The Board applied the test from Hospital for Sick Children and found that the proposed municipal-wide, all-employee bargaining unit was appropriate.

The Board concluded that the proposed unit would not cause serious labour relations problems and would reduce fragmentation.

The Board also determined that temporary employees, summer students, cylinder porters, and painters shared a sufficient community of interest to be included in the bargaining unit.

The Board directed that the ballots cast in the representation vote be counted.

The applicant union sought production of a contract referred to during the examination-in-chief of a witness.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the responding party to produce the document to the applicant's counsel, subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The responding party was permitted to obscure financial, proprietary, and sensitive business information not related to the witness's evidence, and the applicant's counsel was prohibited from copying or sharing the document with anyone, including the applicant union itself.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by demoting and disciplining an employee due to his involvement in a union organizing drive.

The employer maintained that the discipline was imposed for bona fide business reasons, specifically the employee's history of inappropriate conduct towards truck drivers and causing delivery delays.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the employer had discharged its burden of proving that its actions were free of anti-union animus and were instead based on legitimate business concerns regarding the employee's behaviour.

The union applied for a related employer declaration under subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, arguing that MacIsaac Mining and Tunneling and MacRanald Enterprises Inc. were associated or related businesses under common control and direction.

The responding parties conceded common control but disputed that their activities were related, noting MacRanald's primary business was gaming while MacIsaac's was mine contracting.

The Board found that both entities engaged in construction work on a renovation project, satisfying the requirement for related activities.

The Board exercised its discretion to make the declaration, finding that MacRanald's performance of construction work as a general contractor eroded the union's bargaining rights.

The applicant union applied under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 to determine the appropriate number and description of bargaining units following a hospital restructuring.

The Board denied an adjournment request by the SEIU and denied standing to OPSEU.

The Board determined that there should be one service unit, inclusive of registered practical nurses and stationary engineers, extending to all three of the employer's sites.

The Board also determined that the technical unit should extend to all three sites rather than being limited to one.

The applicant union filed displacement applications for certification for full-time and part-time bargaining units of nurses.

A dispute arose regarding the composition of the full-time bargaining unit, which appeared to contain only one person.

The intervenor union argued that the application for the full-time unit must be dismissed because section 9(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 requires a bargaining unit to consist of more than one employee.

The Board noted that while its practice in displacement applications is to find the incumbent's bargaining unit appropriate, section 9(1) may preclude this if the unit has only one person.

The Board deferred its decision and invited the parties to make further submissions on the interpretation of section 9(1) and the appropriate bargaining unit.

The applicant union sought its reasonably incurred costs of $2,014 following a default judgment against the responding party for violating the collective agreement by performing work with non-union members.

The union relied on Article 9.18 of the collective agreement, which mandates costs for grievances alleging a failure to pay wages or make trust fund payments.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the costs claim, finding that Article 9.18 was designed for the specific purpose of addressing unpaid wages or trust fund contributions, not for grievances concerning the failure to use the union's hiring hall.

The applicant union sought its reasonably incurred costs of $2,014 following a default judgment against the responding party for violating the collective agreement by failing to use the union's hiring hall.

The union relied on Article 9.18 of the collective agreement, which provides for costs in grievances alleging a failure to pay wages or make trust fund payments.

The Board dismissed the costs claim, finding that Article 9.18 was designed for the specific purpose of addressing unpaid wages and trust fund contributions, not hiring hall violations.

The applicant hospital, a successor hospital following an amalgamation, applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 for a determination of the number and descriptions of bargaining units.

The Board determined that there should be seven bargaining units spanning all three hospital sites.

The Board maintained separate units for stationary engineers, McLean House employees, office and clerical employees, and service employees, but combined part-time and full-time employees into single units for each category.

The applicant union applied to combine two separate craft bargaining units (press/photomechanical and mail room) at the responding party's newspaper printing plant.

The employer opposed the combination, arguing that the Labour Relations Act does not permit the combination of craft units and that it would cause serious labour relations problems due to differing interests.

The Board held that section 6(3) of the Act does not bar the combination of craft units under section 7.

Finding that combination would facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining and reduce fragmentation without causing serious labour relations problems, the Board granted the application and ordered the units combined.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the application.

The applicant union sought interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, requesting the interim reinstatement of a key inside union organizer who was discharged shortly after commencing organizing activities.

The employer argued the discharge was for cause, citing the employee's unauthorized removal of a confidential memo.

The Board applied its two-step test for interim relief, finding that the union had established an arguable case of an unfair labour practice.

In balancing the harm, the Board concluded that the potential chilling effect on the organizing campaign outweighed the employer's concerns about a breach of trust, particularly given the early stage of the campaign.

The Board ordered the interim reinstatement of the employee and the posting of a notice, but declined to order interim compensation.