12 total
Wrongful dismissal appeal dismissed as employee's dishonesty during investigation justified termination for cause.
The appellant appealed the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal claim, arguing he was misled during a workplace investigation interview.
The trial judge found the appellant lied about the content of emails with a subordinate and his personal use of company equipment, and agreed to be a party to his subordinate's falsehood.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's application of the McKinley proportionality test, finding the dishonesty was work-related and breached the trust required of managers.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Community Living Association operating group homes for developmentally disabled persons designated as a hospital under HLDAA.
The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board asking whether the Community Living Association (Lanark County) is a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.
The employer operates group homes for individuals with severe developmental disabilities who require 24-hour supervision and care.
The Board concluded that the services provided by the employer involve the observation, care, or treatment of persons affected with physical or mental illness.
The Board advised the Minister that the employer is a hospital within the meaning of the Act.
Human rights complaints disposed of without a hearing following full settlement between the parties.
The respondents brought a motion to dispose of the human rights complaints without a hearing, following a full settlement between the parties.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission consented to the disposition pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
The Board of Inquiry deemed the executed confirmation of settlement as sufficient indicium of the complainants' consent and ordered the matter disposed of without a hearing.
Board orders co-respondent to produce documents in related employer and sale of business application.
In a related employer and sale of a business application, two of the responding parties requested an order for the production of documents from the third responding party.
The request was made pursuant to section 111(2)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The Board noted that the request was unusual and that the requesting parties did not specify how the documents were relevant to the section 69/1(4) case.
However, as the documents were arguably relevant and the third responding party did not object, the Board ordered the production of the requested documents.
Hospital breached statutory freeze by unilaterally altering employee benefits during first collective agreement bargaining.
The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the hospital contravened the statutory freeze provisions of the Labour Relations Act and the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act by unilaterally altering the employee benefit package after the union was certified but before a first collective agreement was reached.
The hospital argued it was acting bona fide in response to budgetary pressures and carrying on 'business as usual'.
The Board reviewed its approach to statutory freeze cases, noting the limitations of the 'business as usual' and 'reasonable expectations' tests.
The Board held that the statutory freeze is intended to bolster the bargaining process and reinforce the union's status as exclusive bargaining agent.
Because the benefit changes affected employees as a collectivity and were the kind of thing the employer would normally be obliged to bargain about, the hospital was prohibited from implementing them unilaterally.
The Board found a breach of the statutory freeze provisions and referred the matter back to the parties to attempt a settlement on remedy.
Respondent school board ordered to pay $10,000 in general damages for employment discrimination.
Following a finding that the respondents discriminated against the complainant in employment on the basis of race and ethnic origin, the parties were unable to agree on remedies.
The Board of Inquiry reconvened and, with the agreement of the parties, ordered the respondent school board to pay $10,000 in general damages and to review its transfer procedures and policies to ensure compliance with the Human Rights Code.
Related employer and sale of business application dismissed; community centre operated autonomously from municipal funder.
The applicant trade union sought a declaration that the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and the Pinecrest-Queensway Health and Community Services constituted a single employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively, that there had been a sale of a business under section 64.
The union argued that the Region's funding, provision of personnel, and historical support demonstrated common control or a transfer of social service delivery.
The Board dismissed the application, finding that the P-Q Centre operated autonomously under its own Board of Directors and that the Region acted merely as a supportive funder and participating agency, without exercising control or transferring its statutory responsibilities.
First contract arbitration directed where employer refused to negotiate despite union concessions and adopted uncompromising positions.
The union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.
The employer raised a preliminary objection that section 40a was unavailable because it had previously been party to a collective agreement with a displaced union.
The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that section 40a applies where the specific parties have been unable to effect their first collective agreement.
On the merits, the Board found that the collective bargaining process was unsuccessful due to the employer's failure to make reasonable or expeditious efforts to conclude an agreement, particularly its refusal to negotiate following union concessions, and its uncompromising bargaining position without reasonable justification.
The Board directed the settlement of the first collective agreement by arbitration.
One Board member dissented.
Transfer of patents, expertise, and goodwill constituted a sale of a business under the Labour Relations Act.
The applicant trade union alleged that a sale of a business occurred between ComDev and Senstar Corporation, and sought a declaration that Senstar was bound by the existing collective agreement.
Senstar argued that only assets were transferred, that the union's geographic scope did not cover Senstar's location, and that the union's constitution did not permit Senstar employees to join.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the transfer of patents, technical expertise, customer lists, and goodwill constituted a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.
The Board also interpreted the collective agreement's geographic scope liberally to include Senstar's location and found the union's constitutional amendment valid.
A representation vote was ordered due to the intermingling of employees.
Board ordered new notice posted after parties agreed to add group leaders to proposed bargaining unit.
The applicant trade union applied for certification and initially proposed a bargaining unit that excluded group leaders.
At the hearing, the parties agreed to amend the bargaining unit to include group leaders.
The applicant argued the Board should proceed without giving further notice to the group leaders.
The Board held that the group leaders were entitled to notice as their legal rights could be affected by the application.
The Board directed that a new Notice to Employees be posted and extended the terminal date.
Corporate officers held personally liable for unfair labour practices including failure to remit union dues.
The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the corporate employer and its two directing minds, alleging breaches of the Labour Relations Act for refusing to pay previously ordered compensation and refusing to deduct and remit union dues.
The Board found that both the corporation and the individual respondents breached sections 64, 66, and 70 of the Act.
The Board held that individual officers can be held personally liable under these sections.
However, due to the union's significant delay in bringing the complaint regarding the 1985 compensation negotiations, the Board declined to order a remedy for those breaches.
The Board did find the respondents liable for the recent failure to deduct and remit union dues and scheduled a hearing to determine the appropriate remedy.
Board finds sale of business occurred, rescinds certification, and orders representation vote between competing unions.
The Carpenters' union applied for certification of employees of Construction P.H. Grager Inc. The Labourers' union requested reconsideration, arguing they already held bargaining rights through a prior company, Pierre A. Gratton Construction Inc., which was a related or successor employer.
The Board found that a sale of a business had occurred under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, as the new company acquired the experience and expertise of the prior company's principal.
Consequently, the Carpenters' application was deemed a displacement application, the previous certificate was rescinded, and a representation vote was ordered.
