Susan Ballantyne

The applicant filed a human rights application challenging the attendance management program at two respondent work sites.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the applicant had standing against William Osler Health Centre and if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found the applicant was employed solely by Carillion Services Inc. and lacked standing against William Osler.

Furthermore, the applicant's theoretical concerns about the attendance program, which had been revised following a union policy grievance settlement, did not raise issues under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking the production of documents, including his employment file and PDA records.

The Tribunal declined to consider the request because the Application had previously been deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's grievance and arbitration process.

The applicant may renew the request if the Application is re-activated.

The applicant, a hospital porter, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal against her employer and union after she was terminated.

The employer claimed she was terminated for fraudulently claiming to be disabled while working at a concurrent job.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union, finding no evidence that its failure to file a grievance was influenced by discrimination.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the application against the employer, finding that issues regarding disability, accommodation, and the reasons for termination required a full hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal after his employment was terminated following the deferral of his initial application.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing union grievance and arbitration proceeding regarding the termination.

The union requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and deferred the application, noting that labour arbitrators have jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code and deferral avoids duplication of proceedings.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of grievance and arbitration proceedings under the collective agreement.

The applicant's bargaining agent sought to intervene and supported the deferral request.

The Tribunal granted the union leave to intervene and deferred the application, noting that the grievance raised the same issues and labour arbitrators have jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct including misappropriating a box of gloves, falsifying employment history on resumes, and multiple instances of substandard patient care such as medication errors and failure to assess clients.

The Member admitted to the allegations through an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct and accepted a Joint Submission on Order, imposing a reprimand, a two-month suspension, and extensive remedial terms and conditions on her certificate of registration.

The Member, a Registered Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for physically assaulting a co-worker during a dispute over who would be Charge Nurse.

The Member admitted to the allegations.

After a hearing to determine the facts, the Discipline Committee found that the Member committed professional misconduct by contravening standards of practice and engaging in unprofessional conduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a two-week suspension of the Member's certificate of registration, and required the Member to review professional standards with a practice consultant.

The union filed a group grievance claiming compensation for vandalism to employees' vehicles in the workplace parking lot.

In an interim award, the arbitrator held that the alleged facts did not constitute a violation of the collective agreement.

The union argued that the arbitrator nevertheless had jurisdiction under the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Weber v. Ontario Hydro.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, holding that Weber does not expand arbitral jurisdiction beyond controversies governed by the express or implied terms of a collective agreement.

Because the property damage claim did not arise under the agreement, the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction.

The union filed a group grievance claiming compensation for vandalism to the grievors' vehicles in the employer's parking lot, alleging the employer failed to take reasonable precautions.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the matter was not covered by the collective agreement.

The arbitrator held that the management rights clause (article 2.1) did not create a positive obligation to protect employee property, and the health and safety clause (article 9.1) only applied where employees themselves were placed at risk of bodily injury.

As the union did not allege the employees were endangered, the facts alleged would not constitute a violation of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator left open whether jurisdiction flows from the principles in Weber v. Ontario Hydro.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a registered nurse for misappropriating Demerol for personal use while suffering from a migraine, and subsequently falsifying patient records to conceal the theft.

The nurse admitted to the allegations in an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a 30-day suspension of her certificate of registration and a formal reprimand.

The applicant union (CUPE) alleged that the employer hospital improperly assigned work normally performed by a Pharmacy Storekeeper in its bargaining unit to an Inventory Management Technician in the OPSEU bargaining unit.

The Board found that the work had historically been performed by a CUPE member and that the employer's preference for a technician did not justify removing the work from the CUPE unit, given the strong job protection language in the CUPE collective agreement.

The Board directed the employer to restore the work to the CUPE bargaining unit.

The Teamsters and individual complainants alleged that Steinberg breached the duty to bargain in good faith by negotiating a collective agreement with final offer selection and labour peace provisions, and subsequently selling its Ontario retail operations to A & P. They also alleged that the transaction constituted a sale of the distribution business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, and that the structure of the deal and A & P's subsequent hiring practices were motivated by anti-union animus.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed all applications and complaints, finding no breach of the duty to bargain in good faith, no sale of the distribution business, and no anti-union animus in the transaction's structure or A & P's hiring practices.

The applicant union sought orders regarding a proposed job evaluation and pay equity plan.

The employer raised a preliminary challenge to the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the application was premature because the Review Officer had not yet issued an order or notification under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that there had been insufficient meaningful dialogue at Review Services and that the impasse required for the Tribunal to assume jurisdiction must occur in the context of serious settlement efforts at Review Services.

The application was dismissed as premature, without prejudice to refile.

The union alleged that the employer violated the statutory freeze under section 81 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to pay a 3% wage increase to employees earning under $30,000.

The employer argued that the increase was contingent on funding from the City of Ottawa, which was not provided due to budget constraints.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the wage increase was not a guaranteed term or condition of employment, and that 'business as usual' for the employer included responding to budget constraints imposed by the City.

The respondent Steinberg Inc. obtained an ex parte order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) from the Quebec Superior Court staying all proceedings against it.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board considered whether this stay order applied to ongoing unfair labour practice and related employer proceedings before the Board.

The Board held that the broad language of the CCAA and the court order encompassed its adjudicative processes, notwithstanding the remedial nature of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board further held that the proceedings could not be severed to continue against the co-respondent A&P unless the applicants withdrew their complaints against Steinberg.

The union sought to withdraw its certification application and related unfair labour practice complaint.

The respondent employer and objecting employees opposed the withdrawal, arguing the certification application should be dismissed with a bar on future applications under s. 105(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act, and the complaint dismissed with prejudice.

The Board allowed the union to withdraw the complaint without prejudice and dismissed the certification application without imposing a bar, finding no circumstances warranting a departure from its usual practice of not imposing a bar absent a representation vote or a series of unsuccessful applications.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees in the respondent's Leaf Division.

The parties agreed on most of the bargaining unit description but disputed whether seasonal employees should be included.

The respondent argued that the application was made out of season and seasonal employees should be excluded, relying on exceptions for canning and tobacco harvesting.

The Board found that the respondent's operations involved processing, not harvesting, and that the application was made in-season.

The Board concluded that seasonal employees shared a community of interest with permanent employees and included them in the bargaining unit.

The applicants and complainants brought a motion seeking a direction from the Board that the respondent Steinberg produce a witness to testify regarding an allegation of a sale of business under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondents argued that the statutory duty under section 64(13) was satisfied because the co-respondent, A&P, had produced a witness.

The Board rejected this argument and directed Steinberg to adduce viva voce testimony of all facts within its knowledge material to the allegation.