14 total
Arbitration award quashed for breaching natural justice by deciding on unargued grounds of frustration.
The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that found a deemed termination of a grievor's employment, entitling him to termination and severance pay under the Employment Standards Act.
The Divisional Court granted the application and quashed the award, finding that the arbitrator breached natural justice by deciding the case on the basis of frustration of contract—an issue not advanced by the union—without allowing the parties to address it.
The Court also found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable because he failed to determine a specific termination date and ignored evidence of a continuing employment relationship.
Judicial review of arbitrator's decision reversing employee suspension dismissed; factual findings not patently unreasonable.
The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision reversing a two-week suspension imposed on an employee for fighting.
The arbitrator found that the employee had not engaged in a fight, preferring the employee's viva voce evidence over written statements filed by the employer.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's factual findings were not patently unreasonable and that the arbitrator correctly held the employer to the specific grounds assigned for discipline.
Board declines to impose a bar on a withdrawn certification application where union sought to avoid litigation.
The union filed an application for certification but withdrew it after the employer invoked section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, asserting a significantly larger bargaining unit.
The union immediately filed a second application.
The employer requested that the Board impose a bar on future applications under section 7(9) as a condition of the withdrawal.
The Board declined to impose a bar, finding that the union withdrew the first application to avoid protracted litigation over the bargaining unit size, not to avoid a defeat at the polls or manipulate the vote timing.
Board orders certification ballots counted and dismisses employer's unfair labour practice complaint regarding campaign literature.
The union applied for certification and the employer filed a notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, challenging the union's 40% support.
The ballot box from the representation vote was sealed.
The union sought reconsideration of a procedural ruling, arguing that newly discovered evidence showed 15 individuals were improperly on the voters list, and that removing them would give the union the appearance of 40% support.
The Board agreed, reconsidered its ruling, and ordered the ballots counted.
The Board also dismissed the employer's unfair labour practice complaint, finding that the union's campaign literature did not constitute intimidation or coercion.
Application to enforce oral representations in a settlement dismissed; section 96(7) only enforces written terms.
The applicant employer filed a complaint under section 96(7) of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent union breached a settlement agreement by distributing a memorandum to employees regarding the termination of a union organizer.
The employer argued that during settlement discussions, the union's counsel made oral representations that the matter would not be raised again, creating an estoppel.
The union brought a motion to dismiss the application for failing to disclose an arguable case.
The majority of the Board dismissed the application, holding that section 96(7) only applies to the written terms of a settlement and cannot be used to enforce oral representations.
The Board found that the written settlement did not preclude the union from communicating with employees about the matter.
Tribunal declined to issue consent order replacing Review Services Order without evidence of statutory compliance.
The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement regarding a pay equity plan and jointly requested a consent order from the Tribunal to replace a Review Services Order.
The Tribunal declined to issue the consent order, reiterating its policy that it requires sufficient evidence or an agreed statement of facts to ensure any order complies with the Pay Equity Act.
The Tribunal noted that written settlements are nonetheless binding under s. 25.1 of the Act and criticized the parties for attempting to impose a deadline on the Tribunal's decision.
Interim order granted to preserve status quo of union representation pending successor rights determination.
The Board considered an application for interim relief in a successor rights dispute involving competing claims by the Steelworkers, the UFCW, and the RWDSU over the representation of employees at New Dominion/A & P stores.
The unions were unable to agree on how to conduct their affairs while the matter was pending.
To preserve orderly labour relations and ensure employees had continued representation by familiar individuals, the Board granted an interim order maintaining the status quo as of July 10, 1993, allowing local store managers to continue dealing with the union representatives they customarily dealt with prior to the dispute.
Interim certification granted; successor employer's request for a representation vote based on workforce build-up dismissed.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent security guards employed by the responding party.
Shortly after the application, the responding party lost its contract and an intervenor took over as a successor employer.
The intervenor argued that a representation vote should be held because the workforce had changed and expanded since the application date.
The Board allowed the intervenor to participate but dismissed the request for a representation vote, finding that the 'build-up' principle did not apply as the workforce increase was minimal and the original employees remained sufficiently representative.
The Board granted interim certification to the union.
Tribunal varies Review Officer's pay equity order on consent, noting such requests can proceed in writing.
The applicant union and respondent employer jointly requested that the Tribunal vary a Review Officer's order regarding the use and cost-sharing of a gender-neutral job evaluation system under the Pay Equity Act.
The parties sought to delete the requirement to share costs equally and to specify the use of the SES system.
The Tribunal varied the order as requested, noting that it has jurisdiction to issue consent orders where the requested relief is within its discretion and does not contravene the Act.
The Tribunal also noted that such joint requests could be processed via written submissions to avoid the delay and expense of an oral hearing, provided sufficient evidence and an agreed statement of fact are filed.
Board consolidates certification and unfair labour practice proceedings and sets peremptory hearing dates.
The union applied for certification and filed a related section 89 unfair labour practice complaint, seeking to consolidate the two proceedings.
The employer and objecting employees opposed the setting of peremptory hearing dates.
The Board ordered the matters consolidated due to overlapping evidence and set ten peremptory hearing dates to ensure the certification matter was dealt with expeditiously, adjourning the case to a new panel.
Union certified without a vote after voluntary counter-petitions reaffirmed majority support.
The applicant union applied for certification and submitted membership evidence for over 55% of the bargaining unit.
Objecting employees filed a petition opposing the union, and the union subsequently filed counter-petitions reaffirming support.
The Board found both the petition and counter-petitions to be voluntary.
Because the counter-petitions were the last voluntary statement of intention, the Board relied on them to establish the union's support level.
The Board declined to order a representation vote, finding no evidence of misrepresentation, intimidation, or undue influence by the union organizers.
A certificate was issued to the applicant.
Union certified and employee reinstated after Board finds anti-union petition involuntary and termination tainted by animus.
The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that an employee was terminated for union activity.
A group of employees filed a petition opposing certification.
The Board found that the petition did not represent a voluntary expression of employee wishes because it was circulated on company time and premises with the tacit support of management.
The Board also found that the employer's termination of a union supporter, ostensibly for asking another employee to steal files, was tainted by anti-union animus.
The Board certified the union and ordered the employee reinstated with full compensation.
Board dismisses bias objection against panel member and rules comparative law expert evidence inadmissible.
During a hearing on a Charter challenge to section 12 of the Labour Relations Act, the respondents objected to a Board Member sitting on the panel due to comments he made in the Ontario Legislature 20 years prior.
The Board dismissed the bias objection, finding the comments did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The Board also ruled that expert evidence concerning the scope of freedom of association in other countries was inadmissible during the section 2(d) phase of the hearing, though the proposed expert was found qualified to testify on comparative European labour law in the section 1 phase.
Application to determine employee status dismissed due to parties' prior agreement excluding the individuals.
The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether four individuals were employees.
The respondent employer argued the application should be dismissed without a hearing on the merits because the parties had previously agreed during a certification application that the individuals exercised managerial functions and were excluded from the bargaining unit.
The union contended the agreement was only for the purposes of the count.
The Board found that the prior decision recorded an agreement on employee status, which triggered the Westmount Hospital policy restricting subsequent applications.
The Board declined to go behind the prior decision and dismissed the application.
