Peter Chauvin

The parties agreed to adjourn the scheduled hearing dates in November and December 2001 due to the anticipated passage of Bill 130.

The applicant undertook to advise the Board by December 20, 2001, whether it would also seek to adjourn the January 2002 hearing dates.

The Board granted the adjournment.

The applicant union sought certification for employees working at Esso.

The employees were supplied by Best Personnel Services, a temporary personnel agency.

The core issue was whether Esso or Best was the true employer.

Applying the York Condominium factors, the Board found that Esso exercised fundamental control over the employment relationship, including direction, supervision, discipline, and determining when the employment relationship began and ended.

Consequently, the Board determined that Esso was the true employer for the purposes of the certification application.

The applicants, Housekeeping and Junior Dietary Attendants, sought a pay equity adjustment, alleging that the employer and union contravened the Pay Equity Act by arbitrarily redesignating their job classes as gender-neutral and that the certification and subsequent plan amendments constituted changed circumstances.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss for failure to establish a prima facie case.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that the gender classification of the Housekeeping positions was an area of discretion and the pleadings did not establish that the agreement was unreasonable.

Furthermore, negotiated pay equity amendments do not constitute changed circumstances in the establishment.

The application was dismissed.

A group of hospital employees challenged a pay equity plan, alleging it was gender-biased and failed to recognize their job classes as female-dominated.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application on grounds of jurisdiction, timeliness, and standing, arguing that a settlement agreement with the union resolved the matter.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction because the union could not settle the employees' individual complaints on their behalf, and found the application was not untimely as the delay did not constitute an abuse of process.

The Tribunal directed the applicants to provide further particulars to determine whether they had established a prima facie case regarding the gender characterization of their job classes.

Hay Management Consultants Limited sought to be added as a party intervenor in pay equity proceedings between the Ontario Nurses' Association and St. Michael's Hospital.

Hay argued it had a commercial interest because the union alleged its job comparison system was gender-biased.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that Hay had no rights or obligations under the Pay Equity Act and no maintainable action against the union, and therefore was not entitled by law to be a party under section 5 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The applicant union filed a construction industry grievance alleging that the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement by using non-union personnel to prepare interference drawings.

The union argued that interference drawings fell within the agreement's coverage of 'shop and field sketches' or, alternatively, its basket clause for 'all other work included in the jurisdictional claims' of the union.

The Board found a latent ambiguity in the agreement and admitted extrinsic evidence of past practice and negotiating history.

The Board concluded that the parties had never agreed to include interference drawings in the 'shop and field sketches' clause, and that the basket clause only covered work similar in nature to the specifically enumerated work.

The grievance was dismissed.

The complainant union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of work by a subcontractor.

The respondent union had initially filed a grievance demanding the work, but later withdrew it.

The respondent union then brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction or should decline to inquire into the complaint since there was no longer a demand to change the work assignment.

The Board held that, assuming it had jurisdiction, it was appropriate to exercise its discretion not to inquire further into the complaint because the underlying dispute had disappeared with the withdrawal of the grievance.

The complaint was dismissed.

In a jurisdictional dispute over the application of aluminum cladding or lagging over insulation, the respondent Sheet Metal Workers brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint.

They argued that the work in dispute was sheet metal work, a compulsory certified trade under the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification Act, and could therefore only lawfully be assigned to journeymen or apprentice sheet metal workers.

The Board dismissed the preliminary motion, finding that the Apprenticeship Act does not provide any trade with an exclusive jurisdiction and that trade jurisdictions in the construction industry frequently overlap.

The Board concluded it would be inappropriate to determine the issue without a full hearing on the merits.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer alleged that an employee did not pay the required $1.00 initiation fee on his own behalf, as he borrowed it from another employee.

The Board held a hearing into the non-pay allegation and found that the loan was a bona fide private arrangement, meaning the employee tendered the money on his own behalf.

The Board also refused the employer's request to inspect other membership cards, citing statutory secrecy protections.

Finally, the Board resolved disputes over the list of employees, excluding truck drivers and hoist operators from the construction labourers bargaining unit, and issued certificates to the union.

The applicant union applied for certification for a construction industry bargaining unit of labourers employed by the respondent.

The respondent argued that its primary business of repairing concrete cracks in underground parking garages was maintenance, not construction, and therefore the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act did not apply.

The Board applied the test from Master Insulators' and determined that the work involved restoring the waterproofing capacity of structures that had ceased to function properly, which constitutes repair rather than maintenance.

Consequently, the work fell within the construction industry, and the Board issued certificates to the applicant.

The applicant union sought certification to represent private home day-care providers associated with the respondent agency.

The respondent argued the providers were independent contractors.

The Board examined the relationship, noting the providers' economic dependence on the agency for referrals and income, as well as the agency's control over training, standards, and discipline.

The Board concluded the providers were dependent contractors within the meaning of section 1(1)(h) of the Labour Relations Act, and therefore employees under the Act.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.