International Law Office - Legal Newsletters, Law Firm Directory and Legal News
Legal Newsletters - Archive
Search terms: Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP
Jump to
Employment & Labour
Canada
The Ontario Labour Relations Board has certified a bargaining unit of security guards employed by Hawthorne Security & Communications Ltd. The board rejected the employer's argument that granting the certificate would result in a conflict of interest.
An arbitrator has held that the William Osler Health Centre had violated its collective agreement with the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 145 when it contracted out operations in one department and laid off employees in another. The collective agreement provided that the employer could not contract out work if this would result in the lay-off of employees.
Bill 107, an Act to Amend the Human Rights Code, was passed by the Ontario legislature in December 2006. For example, at present the Ontario Human Rights Commission routinely rejects complaints filed by unionized employees on the grounds that the complaint could or should be addressed through the grievance arbitration process.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld an arbitrator's ruling that the city of Hamilton must pay the new Ontario Health Premium for the city's firefighters. The collective agreement between the city and the firefighters' association stated that the city would pay the whole cost of the "designated hospitalization plan and Medicare plan".
An arbitrator has held that the Toronto District School Board breached its collective agreement with Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 4400 when it refused to allow the complainant to enrol in its health and dental benefits plans without penalty when her status changed from part time to full time.
An arbitrator has found that the Toronto District School Board breached the Ontario Human Rights Code, its collective agreement with the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 4400 and its own equality policy by refusing to promote a disabled part-time cleaner. The board's behaviour was found to constitute indirect discrimination against disabled persons.
