Ursula Boylan

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by paying eligible employees a $400 lump sum clothing allowance less statutory deductions, rather than a net payment of $400.

The Union argued the language was clear or, alternatively, latently ambiguous, relying on extrinsic evidence of negotiating history.

The arbitrator held that the clear language of the collective agreement required a gross payment of $400, noting that the Employer's statutory obligation to remit tax did not alter its compliance with the provision.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union grieved that an employee who volunteered and was scheduled in advance to work 5.5 hours on Remembrance Day was entitled to double time for a minimum of 8 hours under article 7.6 of the collective agreement, rather than double time for actual hours worked under article 7.4.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that article 7.6 was intended to apply to employees called in to work on short notice, whereas article 7.4 applied to employees scheduled in advance.

Applying article 7.6 to scheduled employees would render article 7.4 redundant.

The grievor was discharged for allegedly stealing a gift flask from a case of liquor.

The union raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the employer violated Article 26.3 of the collective agreement by failing to inform the grievor in advance of the purpose of an investigatory meeting that could lead to discipline.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the right to advance notice under Article 26.3 is a substantive right, and the employer's failure to provide it prejudiced the grievor.

The Board declared the discharge void ab initio and ordered the grievor reinstated with compensation from the date the union raised the objection.

The grievor, a probationary casual employee, was dismissed for alleged excessive infractions, absenteeism, and lateness.

The employer relied on a culminating incident of the grievor leaving work early due to a reported apartment break-in, along with past infractions that had previously been addressed through non-disciplinary counselling.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer failed to establish culpability for the culminating incident, as it did not investigate the grievor's reasons for leaving early or warn him that leaving would result in discharge.

Furthermore, the employer could not rely on past infractions for which it had already elected to use non-disciplinary counselling.

The grievance was allowed, and the grievor was reinstated with compensation.

The union grieved the employer's decision to award a posted Investigator position to an external candidate rather than the grievor, who had performed the identical role for ten years.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the selection process fatally flawed because the employer relied almost entirely on interview scores, failed to assess the candidates' knowledge of specific environmental statutes required by the position specification, and ignored the grievor's past performance appraisals and supervisory references.

The grievance was allowed, and the employer was directed to re-run the competition among the original applicants.

The grievor sought to buy back pension contributions for a period of absence from 1991 to 1992.

The employer objected that the grievance, filed in December 1999, was untimely under the collective agreement.

The collective agreement required a grievance to be filed within 10 days of the employee first becoming aware of the circumstances giving rise to the complaint.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied a subjective test, finding that the time limit only began to run when the grievor became aware she had a right to grieve under the collective agreement, which occurred in early December 1999.

The grievance was therefore found to be timely.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

A representation vote was held, and the union challenged the ballots of two individuals, arguing they exercised managerial functions under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that one individual, who monitored jobs, directed employees, and controlled timesheets, exercised managerial functions and was excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board found the other individual, despite being a director and participating in profit-sharing, did not exercise significant managerial authority and was included in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a craft bargaining unit of electricians and electricians' apprentices employed by the responding employer.

A dispute arose over whether individuals performing electrical work without the required licenses under the Trades Qualification Act (TQA) should be included in the bargaining unit and eligible to vote.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsidered its previous Irvcon/Marsil line of cases, which required TQA compliance for inclusion in a craft unit.

The Board held that the status of an individual should be determined by the work they were performing on the application date, regardless of whether they held the required TQA licenses.

Consequently, the unlicensed electricians were deemed eligible to cast ballots in the representation vote.

In an application for certification, the Ontario Labour Relations Board held a hearing to determine the appropriate bargaining unit, specifically regarding the impact of the Trades Qualification Act.

After reviewing the provincial collective agreement filed by the parties, the Board requested written representations clarifying whether all employee categories listed under the union recognition clause are required to hold Trades Qualification Act documentation.

The responding party employer brought a motion to bar the applicant union from bringing a second certification application.

The union had withdrawn its first application shortly before a scheduled representation vote due to a defective A-74 form, which the employer argued caused unnecessary trouble, expense, and lost production time.

The Board dismissed the motion, noting its long-standing practice of permitting a union to withdraw an application prior to a vote without a bar unless a manifest abuse of process is demonstrated.

The Board found the union's error was inadvertent and a single error did not warrant imposing a bar.

The applicant filed an application alleging a violation of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Having considered the joint submissions of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application as it did not disclose a violation of the Act.

The Board also amended the style of cause to reflect the correct name of the applicant.

The applicant union filed an application against the responding party employer.

Based on the joint submissions of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that it did not disclose a violation of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board also ordered that the decision could not be referred to by either party in any subsequent litigation.

The union filed a group grievance regarding the allocation of overtime.

The grievance was advanced to stage 2 but was not advanced to stage 3 until 18 months later due to the union representative's absence and subsequent unexplained delay.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was inarbitrable due to untimeliness.

The Grievance Settlement Board declined to exercise its discretion under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time limits, finding no reasonable explanation for the lengthy delay and noting prejudice to the employer due to fading memories.

The grievance was dismissed as inarbitrable.

The union grieved the employer's scheduling of casual employees, arguing that a senior casual employee available from 12:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. should have been scheduled for that entire period instead of overlapping shifts being assigned to different employees.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement does not fetter the employer's power to fix the start and finish times of shifts.

Because the grievor could not provide the services of two people during the one-hour overlap, he was not available for the entirety of the established shifts.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

A representation vote was held, but the ballot box was sealed due to disputes over voter eligibility.

The Board ruled that one individual was not entitled to vote because he was neither a certified journeyman nor a registered apprentice on the date of application, and had worked in the trade for more than three months without registering.

Following this ruling, the ballots were counted, and more than 50% were cast in favour of the union.

The Board ordered the issuance of certificates to the union.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act through threats and discriminatory layoffs during a certification drive.

The Board found that a foreman's comments to employees regarding unionization constituted unlawful interference, intimidation, and threats.

Furthermore, the Board concluded that the employer failed to discharge its reverse onus to prove that the subsequent layoff of three employees was free of anti-union animus, as the asserted lack of work did not adequately explain the timing or extent of the layoffs.

The Board ordered the immediate reinstatement of the employees with compensation for lost wages.