Robert Salisbury

The applicant, a freelance writer and volunteer community editorial board member for the Guelph Mercury, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the newspaper, the Ontario Press Council, and the Guelph General Hospital.

The applicant claimed the hospital discriminated against him based on race when responding to his inquiries for an article, and that the newspaper engaged in reprisal by removing him from the editorial board after he complained.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application against all respondents, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant could not point to any evidence beyond his own beliefs connecting the respondents' actions to a protected Code ground.

The respondents requested the early dismissal of a human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in a prior labour arbitration proceeding.

The arbitration had culminated in a settlement between the union and the employer, but the applicant/grievor had not accepted the settlement.

The Tribunal held that section 45.1 and the doctrine of abuse of process cannot be applied where the substance of the application was settled over the objection of the applicant.

The request for early dismissal was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age and disability regarding his termination, the respondent's failure to rehire him, and the adequacy of his reference letter.

The respondent sought early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed two full and final releases in exchange for severance and an additional lump sum payment.

The Tribunal applied the Pritchard factors and found no evidence of duress or lack of understanding.

The Tribunal concluded that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The applicant employer and responding unions disputed the precise parameters of the nurses' bargaining unit following a merger of health care facilities under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The primary issue was whether Clinical Nurse Specialists and employee health nurses should be included in the merged unit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that the interim negotiated bargaining unit description, which excluded these positions, should continue to apply to the fully merged unit.

The Board reasoned that maintaining the interim agreement would minimize disruption and avoid protracted litigation over employee status under section 1(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Pay Equity Office requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed its referral application as moot after the employer and union reached a binding settlement.

The Office argued it was denied the opportunity to make submissions and that the decision was wrong in law.

The Tribunal declined to reconsider, finding the Office had opted not to participate in the hearing and had not demonstrated any error in law or compelling circumstances to justify reopening the matter, especially since the pay equity plan had already been posted and adjustments paid.

Various groups of employees sought standing to participate in a hearing regarding the revocation or enforcement of a Review Officer's order directing the employer and union to conclude a pay equity plan.

Prior to the hearing, the employer and union reached a settlement on the pay equity plan.

The Tribunal held that the employee groups did not have standing to seek enforcement of the order or to participate in the revocation hearing independently of their bargaining agent.

As the employee groups and the Pay Equity Office were not parties to the revocation hearing, the settlement between the employer and union was binding and concluded the proceedings.

The request for compensation by the employee groups was denied.

The applicant union brought a related employer application and an unfair labour practice complaint concerning the transfer of work from one facility to another.

The respondents requested that the Board rule on preliminary issues regarding the scope of relief and deferral to arbitration.

As the hearing on the merits would require at least six days and would be heard by a differently constituted panel, the current panel declined to entertain the preliminary arguments.

The matter was adjourned to be scheduled for a hearing on the merits, leaving the preliminary issues for the new panel to decide.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a 1973 decision and certificate of accreditation to amend the name of the accredited employers' organization, clarify the geographic scope, and exclude the low-rise part of the residential sector of the construction industry.

The Board found that the current bargaining structure, the consent of the respondent union, and the position of the Mechanical Contractors Association Toronto justified the variation.

The Board noted that the accredited employers' organization had abandoned its bargaining rights in respect of the low-rise part of the residential sector.

The Board varied the decision and certificate accordingly.

The applicant sought accreditation as the bargaining agent for a group of employers in the construction industry.

The Board found the applicant to be a properly constituted employers' organization with the necessary authority to act as an accredited bargaining agent.

The parties agreed on a bargaining unit description that segregated the low-rise part of the residential sector.

The Board determined that, given the existing pattern of collective bargaining and the abandonment of bargaining rights by other associations in this specific sub-sector, there were clear and compelling reasons to divide the residential sector.

The Board approved the agreed-upon unit of employers as appropriate for collective bargaining.

The complainants filed a work assignment complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the installation of metal stamping presses.

At the hearing, the complainants amended their request, seeking only a declaration for educational purposes rather than an assignment of the work.

The Board exercised its discretion under subsection 91(1) not to inquire into the complaint, finding that a purely academic declaration would serve no labour relations purpose.

The complaint was dismissed.