7 total
Wrongful dismissal appeal allowed; 24-month notice period awarded and mitigation discount set aside.
The appellant, a 61-year-old middle manager with 32 years of service, appealed a trial judgment regarding his wrongful dismissal.
The trial judge had discounted his damages, finding he failed to mitigate by not seeking lower-level employment such as a crossing guard.
The Court of Appeal held this was a reversible error, as the appellant's obligation was to seek comparable employment.
The Court also found the trial judge erred in the notice period, increasing it to the high end of the range at 24 months, plus benefits.
Claims for further augmentation due to bad faith were dismissed.
Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed; union reasonably settled grievances without applicants' consent.
The applicants, two paramedics, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against their union under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.
They alleged the union delayed processing their grievances regarding access to advanced life support training and improperly settled the grievances without their consent.
The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union had the authority to settle the grievances and did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.
The union's decision to negotiate a settlement was reasonable given the impending loss of bargaining rights and the applicants' failure to pass the required screening tests for the training.
Employees' inappropriate conversation overheard by a customer did not constitute wilful misconduct disentitling them to termination pay.
The employer appealed an Order to Pay termination pay to two former employees, arguing they were terminated for wilful misconduct and wilful neglect of duty after a customer overheard them having an inappropriate conversation about management.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the appeal, finding that while the employees' conduct was inappropriate, it did not amount to wilful misconduct or wilful neglect of duty because they did not intend to undermine the employer's reputation and it was not foreseeable that their actions would irreparably harm the employment relationship.
Applicant found to be a trade union; existing single-plant bargaining unit deemed appropriate for displacement application.
The Canadian Independent Union of Manufacturing Employees (CIUME) applied for certification to displace the United Steelworkers of America (USW) as the bargaining agent for employees at Waterloo Furniture Components Ltd. The Board first determined that CIUME is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, finding that the steps taken at its founding meeting were sufficient to create a viable organization.
The Board then determined the appropriate bargaining unit, rejecting USW's argument to combine two existing units and holding that the established bargaining structure of the Manitou plant unit was presumptively appropriate for a displacement application.
Board directs new representation vote rather than counting single segregated ballot to break tie.
The applicant applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to terminate the responding party union's bargaining rights.
A representation vote resulted in a tie, with one segregated ballot ultimately ruled eligible.
The applicant and intervenor employer requested that the single ballot be counted, while the union requested a new vote.
The Board directed that a new representation vote be taken to preserve the secrecy of the ballot.
Application dismissed; conversion of cinema to live theatre did not constitute a sale of a business.
The applicant union alleged that the respondent non-profit community theatre purchased a part of the business of the predecessor cinema operator when it acquired a theatre building, and thus was a successor employer under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.
The respondent purchased the cinema and renovated it for live theatre performances.
The Board found that the respondent did not acquire a distinct part of the predecessor's configuration of assets, nor was there a continuation of the work performed by the employees.
The application was dismissed as no sale of a business occurred.
Certification application dismissed due to improper and unreliable Form 9 declaration regarding membership evidence.
The applicant employee association applied for certification.
The intervener union challenged the application, alleging improprieties in the membership evidence and the Form 9 declaration, as well as employer interference.
The Board found that the Form 9 declarant did not make the necessary reasonable inquiries and that the amended Form 9 contained material misrepresentations regarding the collection of membership cards and fees.
Consequently, the Board rejected the Form 9 declarations as improper and unreliable.
Without a valid Form 9, the membership evidence was given no weight, and the application for certification was dismissed.
