Roy Filion

The union brought an application alleging a sale of a business and an unfair labour practice complaint against the responding party, a nursing services provider.

The community care access centre (CCAC) had contracted out 98% of its nursing services to the responding party.

The union argued this constituted a transfer of a part of the CCAC's business.

The Board found that the arrangement was a subcontracting of work, not a transfer of a business, as the responding party was a pre-existing business with its own infrastructure, management, and personnel, and no assets or economic organization were transferred from the CCAC.

The applications were dismissed.

The grievor, a former Employment Equity Manager, filed four grievances against the Ministry of Transportation.

She alleged that her transfer to a Project Manager position was arbitrary, discriminatory, and the culmination of a series of acts of sexual discrimination and harassment.

She also grieved the employer's handling of a harassment complaint made against her by a subordinate, and the employer's decision not to grant her an interview for a subsequent Employment Equity Manager competition.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed all four grievances.

The Board found that the transfer was made for legitimate business reasons and to remove the grievor from a discordant work environment, not for discriminatory reasons.

The Board also found no breach of the duty of fairness in the handling of the complaint against her, and concluded that the decision not to interview her for the competition was a reasonable, conscious decision by the employer.

The union referred a grievance to the Board under s. 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the employer failed to apply the Principal Agreement to work on a blast furnace.

The union argued that a previous consent order of the Board regarding a similar grievance established that the work was construction work and that the employer was bound by the agreement, relying on res judicata and issue estoppel.

The Board rejected this argument, finding that the previous consent order was reached without litigating the merits, and therefore the doctrines did not apply.

The Board also declined to hear evidence regarding the settlement discussions that led to the consent order, emphasizing the importance of protecting the settlement process.

The Carpenters' union and the Labourers' union disputed the assignment of the carpentry portion of concrete forming work on two bridge projects in Board Area No. 8.

The employer, Ellis-Don Ltd., had assigned the work to the Carpenters.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board considered factors including employer practice, area practice, employer preference, and economy and efficiency.

The Board found that these factors supported the assignment of the disputed work to the Carpenters, while the remaining factors were neutral.

The Board ruled that the disputed work was properly assigned to the Carpenters.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging that the responding party employer breached the provincial collective agreement by applying a maintenance agreement to various electrical work projects at a refinery.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board was asked to determine whether eight specific items of work were 'construction' or 'maintenance'.

The Board declined to defer to a prior determination by the General Presidents' Maintenance Committee.

Applying the Master Insulators test, the Board analyzed the context and purpose of each project.

It concluded that seven of the eight items involved additions or enhancements to the systems and were therefore 'construction' work, while one item was 'maintenance'.

The employer was found to have breached the collective agreement with respect to the construction work.

The applicant trade union referred a grievance to the Board alleging the employer failed to pay proper wage rates under the provincial ICI agreement for work performed at a Dofasco project.

The employer asserted the work was maintenance covered by a project agreement.

The General Presidents' Maintenance Committee for Canada (G.P.C.) and Dofasco sought standing to intervene.

The Board held that neither had standing as of right, as they were not bound by the ICI agreement.

However, the Board exercised its discretion to grant standing to the G.P.C. given its role in administering maintenance agreements and the potential impact on the collective bargaining system.

Dofasco was denied standing.

A group of individual teachers sought standing to participate in Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal proceedings regarding a pay equity plan negotiated between their employer and their bargaining agent.

The Tribunal dismissed their application and denied them intervenor status, finding that the Pay Equity Act does not provide individual employees represented by a bargaining agent with a statutory role in the preparation of a pay equity plan.

Furthermore, the teachers did not have a direct legal interest that would entitle them to party status at law, as the proceedings would not threaten the existence of their employment contracts or reduce their actual remuneration.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss human rights complaints alleging discrimination in employment.

Mr. Benmergui argued the Commission breached procedural fairness by failing to notify him of the complainants' requests for reconsideration of the decision not to appoint a board of inquiry.

The Board of Inquiry agreed, finding the breach could not be cured by a full hearing and permanently stayed the complaints against him as an abuse of process.

The respondent Hospital argued the complaints should be dismissed due to the Commission's failure to give reasons for its reconsideration decision, unreasonable delay, and apprehension of bias.

The Board dismissed the Hospital's motion, finding the failure to give reasons could be cured by further disclosure, there was no evidence of actual prejudice from the delay, and no evidence of bias.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of carpenters employed by the respondent.

The respondent argued it had no employees in the unit, asserting the individuals were independent contractors or dependent contractors who employed helpers, thereby making them independent contractors.

The Board examined the relationship between the respondent and various piecework crews.

It found that some crews were independent contractors, while others were dependent contractors.

The Board held that the use of a helper by a pieceworker to meet the respondent's deadlines, rather than for entrepreneurial profit, did not preclude a finding of dependent contractor status.

The Board directed the issuance of certificates to the applicant.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent general contractor violated the Provincial ICI Agreement by subcontracting electrical work to a non-union contractor.

The respondent argued it was not bound by the 1962 working agreement, asserting it was signed without authority, under duress, or was an invalid pre-hire agreement since the respondent never directly hired electricians.

The respondent alternatively argued the union had abandoned any bargaining rights.

The Board held the 1962 working agreement was validly executed, constituted a series of voluntary recognition agreements, and was not abandoned.

The grievance was upheld.

The applicant sought to introduce a report and supplementary report prepared for the Ministry of Labour in 1980 by George W. Adams to show the mischief that existed prior to certain amendments to the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent objected to their admissibility.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that the reports were admissible for the purpose sought by the applicant.

The Board directed the parties to file written submissions on the probative value of the material.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Cronkwright Transport Limited and Erie Employee Services Ltd. constituted a single employer.

Cronkwright had previously contracted out shunting work to an independent operator but later transferred the work to Erie, a related corporation under common control.

The Board found that the essential elements of a related employer relationship were present and that the transfer of work to a related entity, rather than an arm's-length contractor, threatened to erode bargaining rights.

The Board exercised its discretion to grant the declaration, binding Erie to the collective agreement.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the application on grounds of delay and the employees' right to free choice.

The applicant employers' organization sought accreditation as the exclusive bargaining agent for employers in the sewers and watermains sector.

The Board previously issued certificates of accreditation despite unresolved questions regarding whether two specific employers should be included in the unit, finding that the applicant met the double majority test under s. 127(2) of the Labour Relations Act regardless of the outcome.

The Board issued reasons for this jurisdictional finding, drawing an analogy to certification cases where unresolved employee status issues do not affect the union's right to certification.

The parties subsequently agreed on the status of the two employers, and the Board finalized the lists of employers.

The Board also varied the accreditation orders and certificates on consent to correct an error and clarify potential ambiguity.

In a jurisdictional dispute complaint between the Boilermakers and the Labourers over the demolition of a boiler, the Board convened a hearing to determine the scope of evidence of Area and Employer Practice to be admitted.

The Metropolitan Toronto Demolition Contractors Association Inc. sought status to intervene and requested an adjournment to retain counsel.

The Board denied the adjournment request, noting the Association's prior notice and failure to participate earlier.

On the evidentiary issue, the Board ruled that evidence would be limited to the dismantling of field-erected, steam-generating boilers for industrial application, originally erected using Boilermakers, in an operating environment in Ontario, as this constitutes the 'particular work' under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the employer transferred the chief union organizer and discharged two other union supporters due to anti-union animus.

The Board found that the employer's actions violated sections 64, 66, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

Concluding that the employer's misconduct created a climate where the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained, and noting the union had adequate membership support, the Board certified the union under section 8 of the Act and ordered the reinstatement of the discharged employees with compensation.