2 total
Motion to dismiss OHSA reprisal complaint denied; arguable case that sexual harassment constitutes a workplace hazard.
The responding party employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the applicant's complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) for want of a prima facie case.
The applicant alleged she was terminated as a reprisal for reporting sexual harassment by her supervisor, arguing that sexual harassment constitutes a workplace hazard under the OHSA.
The employer argued the OHSA only covers physical hazards and that the Human Rights Code is the proper forum.
The majority of the Board dismissed the motion, finding it was not plain and obvious that the complaint would fail, as the OHSA's definition of 'hazard' is broad and could arguably encompass sexual harassment.
A dissenting member would have granted the motion, finding the OHSA inapplicable to sexual harassment.
Complaint dismissed; minor strike authorization violations did not warrant a cease and desist order.
The complainant employer bargaining agency alleged that the respondent union violated section 134a(1) of the Labour Relations Act by failing to authorize a strike for all employees in the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector of the construction industry, specifically by continuing to supply workers for maintenance work.
The Board examined whether the work performed under various maintenance agreements constituted construction work or maintenance work.
The Board found that while most of the work was maintenance and thus outside the ICI sector, some minor new construction work was performed in violation of the Act.
However, given the union's reasonable efforts to comply and the complainant's members' inconsistent conduct, the Board declined to issue a cease and desist order and dismissed the complaint.
