William John Hayter

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction and penalty of three days off for failing to report for duty.

The Commission found that the original hearing was tainted by a reasonable apprehension of bias because the Chief of Police presided while the Deputy Chief, who gave the order in question, acted as prosecuting officer.

The Commission also found that the local board's appeal process violated natural justice by proceeding without the appellant and before he received the hearing transcript.

The Commission quashed both decisions and elected to decide the matter itself.

It held that while the circumstances surrounding the cancellation of the appellant's leave were unfair, they did not constitute a reasonable excuse for failing to report for duty.

The conviction was upheld, but the penalty was reduced to forfeiture of one day off.

The complainants, two school board maintenance employees, were discharged after pleading guilty to possession of marijuana, which they had stored in a school.

They alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to advise them of the five-day time limit for filing grievances and by ultimately deciding not to take their grievances to arbitration.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union's decision not to arbitrate was based on a reasonable consideration of relevant factors, including the seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of success, and the impact on the bargaining relationship.

The Board also held that the union did not act arbitrarily by failing to proactively advise the complainants of their grievance rights when the complainants had not sought the union's assistance.

The applicant union sought certification to represent employees of the respondent.

The parties disagreed on the status of six individuals who were fully subsidized by government make-work programs (the Futures Program and a municipal welfare program).

The respondent argued these individuals were not its employees because they were funded and partially controlled by external agencies.

Applying the York Condominium criteria, the Board found that the respondent exercised day-to-day control, assigned work, and benefited from their labour.

The Board concluded that the six individuals were employees of the respondent for the purposes of the Labour Relations Act and included them in the bargaining unit.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The respondent employer brought a preliminary motion to extend the terminal date, arguing that the Board notices were received and posted late, giving employees insufficient time to respond.

The majority of the Board dismissed the motion, finding that the actual notice given to employees was adequate, the Registrar complied with Rule 2, and no employees had appeared or objected to the application.

The Board found that the applicant had the requisite membership support and ordered that a certificate issue.

One Board member dissented, arguing that the time provided to employees fell short of the prescribed minimum and the terminal date should have been extended.

The union referred a grievance to arbitration challenging the discharge of an employee who refused to immediately repay a $4,578 overpayment in room and board allowance.

The overpayment occurred due to a mistake of fact by the employer's personnel office, despite the employee's honest disclosure of his living arrangements.

The Board found that while the employer was entitled to recover the overpayment and could use discipline to enforce it, it did not have just cause for discharge because it failed to give the innocent employee a reasonable opportunity to make repayment.

The grievance was allowed, and the employer was ordered to remove the 'Not For Re-hire' designation and pay damages for lost earnings.

The applicant hospital applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether three medical secretaries were employees within the meaning of the Act, arguing they should be excluded due to their confidential capacity in labour relations matters.

The union argued the status of one secretary was already settled in prior negotiations.

The Board dismissed the application regarding the first secretary, finding no material change in duties since the parties agreed to include the position in the bargaining unit.

For all three secretaries, the Board found their access to confidential board of directors' minutes was too remote to constitute a regular and material involvement in labour relations matters.

The Board concluded they were not employed in a confidential capacity and remained in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union sought certification for a unit of millwrights employed by the respondent in Ontario.

The application was opposed on the basis that a subsisting collective agreement existed between the respondent and an intervening union (Lodge No. 126), which was headquartered in Illinois.

The applicant argued that Lodge No. 126 lacked status as a trade union in Ontario because it had no permanent presence in the province, and that its agreement could not be a valid collective agreement.

The Board held that an organization need not have a permanent presence in Ontario to be a trade union, provided it is a viable organization capable of carrying out trade union functions in the province.

The Board found Lodge No. 126 met this definition and that its agreement with the respondent was a valid collective agreement covering Ontario.

Consequently, the application for certification was dismissed as untimely.