OPSEU (Union Grievance) and Ministry of Health (Trillium Drug Program) [2002] O.G.S.B.A. No. 12 – Richard Blair convinced the arbitrator that there was an implicit collective agreement to protect the work of the bargaining unit in the Ontario Public Service and that the government was prevented from using employment agencies for government programs. This decision led to the “Integrity of the Bargaining Unit” project, which led to hundreds of employees being literally members of a union and protected by a union. Brant (County) v. OPSEU, Local 256 2013 O.J. 4796 – Ed Holmes successfully argued that the employer discriminated against The Grievor by refusing to place it in an ambulance in the position of the “third party” positioned in the imbulanze, as stipulated in the collective agreement. The Adjudicator found that the Accommodation of the Grievor in the “third party” position in an ambulance would not have created unreasonable difficulties. David Wright successfully argued the case during the judicial review. The employer submitted that, although it refused to house the Grievor by allowing it to drive “third parties”, the arbitrator`s decision was inappropriate because the employer had made other reasonable provisions that met the requirements of the Human Rights Code. The Ontario Supreme Court, Divisional Court, dismissed the motion and found that the arbitrator`s decision was reasonably based on the fact that the collective agreement was the explicit agreement of the parties that driving “third parties” in an ambulance was appropriate accommodation for a disabled paramedic. In a separate but concurring judgment, a member of the tribunal found that the arbitrator had also reasonably established that the employer`s conduct under the collective agreement was contrary to the human rights code.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Governing Council of the University of Toronto, [2012] OLRB Rep. January/February 175 – Richard Blair successfully argued before the Labour Relations Council of Ontario that Post Doctoral Fellows at the University of Toronto were “collaborators” within the meaning of the Labor Act. This decision is an important step in the growing recognition of the right of non-traditional employment to collective bargaining and a reaffirmation of the principle that a relationship does not lose its employment character because of a single educational component. The decision underscores the continuing struggle of academics for adequate recognition of their work in their academic institutions. Tufa and the university administration have accepted other letters (LoU), Memoranden (MoA, MoU) or Settlement Protocols (MoS) that contain common interpretations of certain sections of the collective agreement or that reflect agreements on related issues that are not explicitly considered by the parties in the negotiations. Such documents are our overall agreement with the employer. Individual transaction agreements are not published on the site. OPSEU (Grievor) v.