Michael G. Sherrard

The Association grieved the termination of the Complainant's employment at the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD).

Based on the submissions of the parties, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the Complainant be reinstated to employment effective November 14, 2014.

The Board further ordered the OIPRD to redact the Complainant's name to reflect 'CSP' in a specific decision posted on its website.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions excluding certain employees from a bargaining unit during a union certification process.

The Board had excluded 11 drivers based on the 'greatest attachment' test and 15 employees under the 'office and clerical' exception.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness.

The Court found that the Board reasonably applied the greatest attachment test given the agreed-upon geographical limitation of the bargaining unit, and reasonably concluded that the disputed employees' duties were administrative in nature.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The grievor was denied long-term income protection (LTIP) benefits and filed a grievance seeking an order confirming eligibility.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was inarbitrable because the collective agreement only obliged the employer to pay the premiums for the insurance plan, not to provide the benefits directly.

Applying the framework from Weber and Dubreuil, the Grievance Settlement Board found that the plain language of the collective agreement indicated an intention to provide benefits through an insurance plan, without incorporating the master contracts by reference.

As the employer's only obligation was to pay premiums, the dispute over benefit entitlement was not within the ambit of the collective agreement and was therefore inarbitrable.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a supplemental award determining the compensation owed to the grievor following an initial award.

The employer was ordered to pay various amounts including 23 months' salary, lost overtime, termination and severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, and an amount in lieu of benefits, less a 30-day suspension deduction.

The total compensation was subject to statutory deductions and an income tax gross-up.

During a hearing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, an issue arose regarding the production of a spreadsheet used to evaluate bids.

The document was potentially in the possession of the responding party due to prior civil litigation, raising concerns about the deemed undertaking rule under Rule 30.1.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The witness, a principal of the company that created the spreadsheet, expressly consented to its production in this proceeding, resolving the issue.

The applicant moved for an order directing a witness, who had already been personally served with a summons and conduct money, to attend the next scheduled hearing date.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the motion and directed the witness to attend.

The employer and union jointly applied for early termination of their collective agreement to implement a new 6-year agreement intended to prevent a plant closure.

A group of objecting employees filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation regarding the ratification vote.

The objectors sought an adjournment at the hearing, which the Board denied due to the commercial urgency of the matter and adequate notice.

The Board dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint, finding the union acted reasonably in allowing departing employees to vote and including severance arrangements in the package.

The Board granted consent for the early termination of the collective agreement.

The applicant union applied for certification of a single retail store location.

The responding employer argued that a single store unit was inappropriate due to the frequent interchange of employees among its six Toronto-area stores and centralized training and buying practices, proposing instead a municipal-wide unit.

The Board applied the Hospital for Sick Children test and found that the single location unit would not cause serious labour relations problems.

The Board granted interim certification for the single store unit, pending the resolution of disputed supervisory classifications.

The applicant union sought interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to reinstate an employee benefit plan and wage rates that the employer allegedly changed without consent during first collective agreement negotiations.

The Board found an arguable case of a violation of the statutory freeze provisions.

However, the Board dismissed the application for interim relief due to the union's significant delay in filing the application, which undermined the urgency and need for an interim remedy.