Richard Blair

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer improperly staffed the Ministry by using agency employees to perform bargaining unit work.

In an interim award, the Grievance Settlement Board determined two legal issues.

First, the Board found that agency employees in the Trillium Drug Program were performing work normally performed by bargaining unit members on a regular and seasonal basis.

Second, the Board held that the employer could not legally have this work done by agency employees.

Applying previous jurisprudence, the Board found an implied term in the collective agreement prohibiting the employer from using non-bargaining unit employees to perform bargaining unit work, which extended to contracted-in agency employees.

The Board concluded it had jurisdiction to order the employer to post classified positions and cease using agency staff for seasonal unclassified positions.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of paramedics.

After the application was filed, the respondent employer and an intervenor union entered into a voluntary recognition agreement covering the same employees.

The intervenor and employer argued this agreement barred the certification application.

The Board held that the timeliness of a certification application is assessed at the time it is made, and subsequent actions by an employer and a rival union cannot render a timely application untimely.

The Board directed that a certificate issue to the applicant union.

The Board held a hearing to determine whether 40 per cent or more of the employees in the bargaining unit were not represented by a bargaining agent immediately before the changeover date, pursuant to section 23(5) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

As the necessary information was not available, the Board directed the employer to produce payroll records and scheduled a further hearing and representation vote.

The union filed a grievance concerning the impending transfer of the Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) from the Crown to the broader public sector, alleging that the transfer would violate a job offer guarantee contained in a 1994 memorandum of understanding.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the 1994 memorandum only applied to employees whose positions were identified as surplus to the requirements of the Realty Group prior to the assumption of operations by ORC in 1994.

The Board concluded that the job offer guarantee did not extend to employees facing layoff due to the current transfer.

The applicant union applied for certification, and a representation vote resulted in a tie with one segregated ballot.

The segregated ballot belonged to a casual employee who had resigned from her permanent part-time position and had not worked in the four months leading up to the vote.

The Board applied the tests from Madeira and EMS, finding that while the employee had an ongoing employment relationship by remaining on a call-in list, she lacked a close connection to the workplace at the time the decision concerning unionization was made.

The Board ruled she was ineligible to vote.

As the union did not receive more than fifty percent of the votes, the application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant union applied to certify a bargaining unit of security guards employed by the responding party casino.

The employer objected under section 14 of the Labour Relations Act, arguing that a conflict of interest would result because the union admits non-guards to membership and the guards monitor other casino employees.

The Board found that while the guards' monitoring duties were significant, no conflict of interest would result because the union did not represent the other casino employees being monitored.

The employer's objection was dismissed and a certificate was issued to the union.

Following the amalgamation of Moore Township and Sombra Township into St. Clair Township, OPSEU applied for certification to represent employees of Moore Township.

St. Clair Township subsequently filed an application under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act (PSLRTA).

The issue was whether OPSEU could participate in the PSLRTA process given that its certification application was filed just prior to the amalgamation changeover date.

The Board held that OPSEU had demonstrated a sufficient interest in the proceedings by virtue of its certification application and successful representation vote, and exercised its discretion to grant OPSEU intervenor status in the PSLRTA application.

The applicant union (OPSEU) applied for certification to represent paramedics.

The responding party (City/Region) claimed it was not the employer, asserting the Town of Ancaster was.

An intervenor union (CUPE) claimed the application was untimely because its existing collective agreement with the City/Region covered the paramedics.

The Board applied the York Condominium factors and found the City/Region was the employer at the time of the application, given its control over hiring, remuneration, and intention to create an employment relationship.

The Board also found that the scope clause of the CUPE collective agreement did not automatically include the new paramedic classifications, as the parties had not agreed to their inclusion, and therefore the clause did not bar OPSEU's certification application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board heard a consolidated application for certification and a related employer application under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board issued procedural orders directing the responding employers to file a response and produce material documents regarding the section 1(4) application.

The Board also ordered the applicant union to provide full particulars of its position concerning the effect of recent Minutes of Settlement on the applications.

The matters were scheduled for continuation of hearing.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer breached section 5.3 of Appendix 18 of the collective agreement by failing to ensure that receiving employers recognized seniority rights for lay-off and job competitions in Requests for Proposals (RFPs).

The parties sought an interpretation of section 5.3 prior to a hearing on remedy.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the Employer is obligated to require new employers to provide core seniority protections in their job offers to transferring employees, specifically a 'relatively equal' clause for job competitions and a 'last hired, first laid off' provision for lay-offs.

The Grievance Settlement Board was asked to interpret section 5.2 of Appendix 18 of the collective agreement between the parties.

The issue was whether employees who exited the Ontario Public Service (OPS) under section 5.2, received surplus entitlements, and subsequently secured a new position in the OPS, were required to repay those monies pursuant to Articles 20.2.4 or 20.2.5.

The Union argued that these articles conferred a benefit and should not apply, while the Employer argued they were obligations.

The Board held that while section 5.2 removed Article 20 assistance for exiting employees, it did not prevent them from competing for open positions.

If successful, the collective agreement applies to them, and they are obligated to repay the monies under Articles 20.2.4 and 20.2.5, after which their continuous service date is recalculated.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a brief decision regarding the interpretation of a collective agreement.

The Board held that an employee surplused under Section 5.2 of Appendix 18 who subsequently secures a position within the Ontario Public Service is required to repay monies in accordance with Articles 20.2.4 or 20.2.5.

Furthermore, the employee's service date must be calculated as required by those articles.

Reasons were to follow.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, resulting in a majority in favour of the union.

The only remaining issue was the inclusion of Quality System Associates in the bargaining unit.

The responding party requested an adjournment to allow the parties to negotiate this issue during collective bargaining, which the union opposed.

The Board granted the adjournment and, on consent, issued an interim certificate to the union pursuant to section 9(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, pending final resolution of the bargaining unit composition.

During the course of a hearing regarding an occupational health and safety appeal and a jurisdictional dispute, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlement.

The settlement resolved the appeal of a Ministry of Labour inspector's decision and the jurisdictional dispute concerning the installation of temporary lighting strings on construction projects.

The parties agreed that non-conductive material would be used for hanging and supporting temporary lighting strings and that workers would be instructed in safe installation.

The Board issued a decision reflecting the settlement, permitting the withdrawal of the jurisdictional dispute and terminating the health and safety appeal.

The union filed policy grievances regarding the transfer of two psychiatric hospitals to the broader public sector.

Affected employees received job offers from the receiving facilities and were deemed to have resigned from the public service.

The dispute centered on whether employees with between one and five years of service were entitled to severance pay under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator found that the collective agreement was ambiguous regarding whether the deemed resignation occurred during the surplus notice period.

However, because the right to severance pay existed prior to the addition of the transfer appendices and was not clearly negated, the arbitrator concluded that the employees were entitled to severance pay.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to process his grievance regarding a surplus/layoff notice to arbitration.

The union had grouped his grievance with others and ultimately withdrew it as part of a larger settlement.

The applicant complained about the union's failure to adequately explain his bumping rights and its failure to communicate the withdrawal of his grievance in a timely manner.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union had honestly assessed the merits of the grievance and that the delay in communication, while regrettable, did not amount to arbitrary conduct.

The union grieved the employer's decision to transfer two psychiatric hospital facilities to a new employer on separate dates, arguing it would adversely affect employees' seniority rights.

The union contended this was an improper exercise of management discretion.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence that the employer's decision was made in bad faith or for anything other than the legitimate governmental objective of facilitating a smooth transition.

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.

Following a prior decision that the employer contravened the collective agreement by failing to pay a 2% benefit to unclassified employees, the union sought retroactive payment for both grievors and non-grievors beyond the standard 30-day period prior to the grievance filings.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to expand the scope of the union grievance to cover non-grievors outside the specified location.

The Board further found no inequitable conduct by the employer that would warrant an exception to the usual rule limiting retroactivity to 30 days prior to the filing of the grievances.

The applicant union brought three related applications, including a related employer application under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, an unfair labour practice complaint under section 96, and an application under section 66.

The parties disputed the order of proceeding and whether the section 1(4) application should be bifurcated from the unfair labour practice issues.

The Board directed that all three files be heard simultaneously initially, with the responding employers calling their evidence first, subject to a later determination on whether to split the proceedings.

The Board also made directions regarding the production of documents and particulars.