Timothy Hadwen

The applicant, a former respiratory therapist, sought judicial review of two arbitration awards from 1994 and 1995 that upheld his suspension and dismissal, as well as a 1999 Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint against his union.

The respondents moved to dismiss the application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application on two independent grounds: excessive and unexplained delay of up to eight years, and the applicant's lack of standing to seek judicial review of arbitration awards where the union holds exclusive bargaining agency.

The Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario (AMAPCEO) filed a policy grievance asserting that the Employer, Management Board Secretariat, failed to include certain employees under the recognition clause of their collective agreement, claiming AMAPCEO is a 'tag end' unit.

The Employer opposed the grievance and argued that the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) should be granted third party status because the determination of the grievance could affect OPSEU's bargaining rights.

OPSEU sought status, while AMAPCEO opposed it.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted OPSEU third party status, finding that the fundamental question of whether AMAPCEO is a tag end unit directly implicates the scope of OPSEU's bargaining units, and natural justice requires OPSEU's participation.

OPSEU's intervention was made conditional on its agreement to be bound by the result of the proceedings.

The grievors, Group Managers (AM20) in the Ministry of Finance, filed a grievance alleging that the employer's reorganization of their duties and the creation of a new AM21 position constituted bad faith and a violation of their working conditions.

The reorganization was implemented to address salary compression issues arising from a new collective agreement for senior auditors.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was a classification matter outside the jurisdiction of the Public Service Grievance Board.

The Board heard evidence and concluded that while the reorganization may have been a poor administrative decision, there was no clear evidence of bad faith, discrimination, arbitrariness, or a breach of the Public Service Act.

Consequently, the Board declined jurisdiction and dismissed the grievance.

The applicant union and responding Crown sought a determination from the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding which services involving court administration and Y2K preparation were 'essential services' under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993.

The Board held that the administration of the courts must continue without disruption during a strike or lock-out, and identified specific court personnel whose roles constitute essential services.

Regarding Y2K preparation, the Board ruled that essentiality requires a project-by-project assessment, directing the parties to negotiate specific projects and allowing the Crown to reapply before a strike or lock-out if necessary.

The union applied under section 81 of the College Collective Bargaining Act for a determination of whether certain persons were employees.

The Board examined the duties and responsibilities of eight individuals to determine if they exercised managerial functions or were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

The Board found that three individuals were employees within the meaning of the Act, while five were excluded due to their managerial or confidential duties.

One Board member dissented regarding the status of one individual.