A. Hershkovitz

The applicant employer applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the union failed to give notice to bargain within sixty days following certification.

The union explained the delay was due to staffing difficulties at its regional office and that notice was served shortly after the application was filed.

The Board dismissed the application, finding the delay was not lengthy, resulted from inadvertence rather than an intention to sleep on rights, and did not cause prejudice to the employer.

The union brought applications alleging that Specialized Packaging Products Ltd. was a successor employer to Paperboard Industries Corporation following the purchase of a corrugator machine and the assignment of a lease for a plant in Holland Landing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the transactions, which included the acquisition of the essential production equipment, the premises, and the hiring of the former plant manager and employees, constituted a sale of part of Paperboard's business under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board declared that Moore Packaging Corporation, into which Specialized had merged, was bound by the collective agreement between the union and Paperboard.

The applicant applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights for employees of the intervener employer.

The Board determined that the application could only affect bargaining rights outside the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector, as no employees were working in the ICI sector on the application date.

The Board also rejected the union's argument that certain employees should be excluded from the unit because they were allegedly recalled from layoff contrary to the collective agreement, finding no evidence of employer manipulation.

Concluding that at least 45 per cent of the employees had voluntarily signified they no longer wished to be represented by the union, the Board directed a representation vote.

The applicant union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

At the hearing, the union sought leave to file a supplementary statement containing new material facts, which the respondent opposed.

The Board denied leave, citing the strict time limits and requirements of Practice Note 18.

The union also moved for a direction based solely on the pleadings and the existence of a lengthy strike, which the Board also denied, noting that evidence was required to establish the statutory prerequisites.

Following these rulings, the union sought leave to withdraw its application, and the Board terminated the matter.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the duty to bargain in good faith by refusing to negotiate pension issues separately from a joint union committee.

The employer argued the union had irrevocably ceded its right to bargain pensions separately by participating in the joint committee in previous rounds.

The Board held that the union was entitled to unilaterally withdraw from the joint committee with adequate notice.

The employer violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by pressing its demand for joint bargaining to impasse and refusing to receive the union's pension proposals.

However, the employer's direct communications with employees regarding its bargaining position were found to be permissible.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer, a fishing company, committed an unfair labour practice by failing to rehire seven seasonal deckhands for the 1987 fishing season because of their support for the union.

The employer argued that the crew reduction was for legitimate business reasons and that the grievors had failed to formally request employment.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's departure from its usual informal hiring practices was orchestrated to exclude the grievors due to their union affiliation.

The Board declared a contravention of section 66(a) of the Labour Relations Act and ordered compensation for the lost 1987 and partial 1988 seasons.

The applicant, Local 594, sought a declaration under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent, Local 586, had not acquired its bargaining rights following a merger ordered by the International President of the IBEW.

Local 594 argued that a merger could not be effected without a vote of its members.

The majority of the Board dismissed the application, finding that the merger was carried out in accordance with the union's constitution and that the Board's role under section 62 is to ensure constitutional provisions were followed, not to require a membership vote.

A dissenting member would have required a representation vote for non-ICI sector bargaining rights.

The applicant union local sought a declaration under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent union local was not its successor following a merger ordered by the international union president.

The Board found that the employer intervener had status to participate but could not lead evidence on the business consequences of the merger.

The Board determined that the merger was conducted in accordance with the union's constitution, which did not require a membership vote.

However, the Board raised concerns about the effect of section 137(2) of the Act and the provincial agreement on the application, and referred the matter for a further hearing on that issue.

The union applied for certification to represent employees of the Grand River Conservation Authority.

The outstanding issues were whether 15 'Superintendents' exercised managerial functions under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, and whether the bargaining unit description should specifically exclude 'Superintendents' or use the generic term 'managers'.

The Board found that the 13 Area Superintendents exercised managerial functions due to their effective control over seasonal employees, while the Head Office Superintendent and Small Dams Superintendent did not.

The Board concluded that the generic term 'managers' should be used in the bargaining unit description rather than the specific job title.

The applicant union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration pursuant to section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The union argued that the employer failed to make reasonable or expeditious efforts to conclude a collective agreement.

The Board found that the employer's conduct, including refusing to present a monetary package, sending ill-prepared negotiators without authority, and reneging on previous proposals, demonstrated a failure to make reasonable or expeditious efforts.

The Board directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

In an application for certification, the parties disputed whether 'Area Superintendents' exercised managerial functions under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

A labour relations officer was appointed to inquire into the duties of specific individuals.

The applicant union requested a hearing to argue that the officer should also hear evidence regarding the duties of 'Interpreters' (who were in the bargaining unit) for comparative purposes.

The Board deferred the request, ruling that the scope of the officer's inquiry would not be enlarged or made the subject of a hearing until the officer's report on the initially examined individuals was completed and circulated.

The applicant union alleged that the respondent employer sold a part of its business to the intervener when it contracted out the cleaning services for its office building.

The union sought a declaration under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act that the intervener was bound by the existing collective agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the respondent was primarily in the insurance business and that the contracting out of cleaning services was a bona fide arrangement based on economic considerations.

The Board concluded that there was no transfer of assets or employees, and thus no sale of a business within the meaning of the Act.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging the respondent violated a collective agreement.

The respondent argued it was merely a project manager and the true employer was the non-profit owner of the project.

The Board applied the seven criteria from York Condominium to determine the true employer.

Finding that the respondent hired, supervised, disciplined, and paid the employees, and was perceived by them as the employer, the Board concluded the respondent was the true employer for purposes of the Labour Relations Act, despite the arrangement being structured to access federal wage subsidies.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights during what would normally be the open period of the collective agreement.

The respondent union argued the application was untimely because the Inflation Restraint Act, 1982 extended the collective agreement for one year, thereby postponing the open period.

The Board applied its previous reasoning in Broadway Manor, finding that the statutory extension of the agreement closed the open period for termination applications.

The Board also rejected arguments that the Inflation Restraint Act violated the freedom of association under the Charter.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent parent company and its bankrupt subsidiary were a single employer.

The union sought this declaration to realize an unsatisfied arbitration award of $3,403.39 against the subsidiary.

The Board found that while the entities were under common control and direction, it would not exercise its discretion to make the declaration.

The Board held that the purpose of section 1(4) is to preserve bargaining rights, not to provide a 'deep pocket' for debt recovery where the subsidiary had ceased operations and no work had been transferred.

The application was dismissed, with one member dissenting.

The applicant requested the Board to reconsider its interim decision declining to defer the determination of the identity of the proper employer until the same issue was resolved in a separate certification application involving the same respondent.

The Board dismissed the request, noting that the evidence on the preliminary issue was already complete in the instant case, and the determination could not be properly influenced by findings of fact made by another panel in a different proceeding.

The applicants applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union for two bargaining units of the intervener employer.

The Board dismissed the application regarding the non-ICI sector as untimely.

For the ICI sector, the union argued the relevant bargaining unit for termination was the province-wide unit under the provincial agreement, meaning the applicants lacked the required 45% support.

The Board held that the correct bargaining unit for termination purposes is the employer-specific unit, not the province-wide unit.

Finding that the applicants had the requisite support within the employer's ICI unit, the Board directed a representation vote.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent carpenters employed by the respondent.

The respondent challenged the union's membership evidence, alleging it was obtained through false statements.

The Board found the membership evidence valid, noting the employees voluntarily signed the applications and paid the required fee.

A statement of desire opposing the union was also filed, but the Board declined to give it weight, finding it was not a voluntary expression of the employee's wishes due to management influence.

The Board granted the application and issued a certificate to the applicant.

The union brought applications under sections 1(4), 63, and 124 of the Labour Relations Act against George Hamers Limited and L & M Plumbing & Heating.

The Board dismissed the section 1(4) application, finding that L & M was merely a division of George Hamers Limited and not a separate legal entity.

The section 63 application was also dismissed as no collective agreement was in force when the assets were acquired in 1967.

However, the Board upheld the section 124 grievance, finding that George Hamers Limited violated the collective agreement by assigning bargaining unit work to a non-union employee in its L & M division.

The union was awarded damages.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees at the respondent's home for the aged.

A group of employees filed a petition in opposition.

The union sought certification without a vote under section 7a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the employer's unfair labour practices, including statements by the Director of Nursing and anti-union inquiries during hiring interviews, prevented the true wishes of the employees from being ascertained.

The Board found that the employer violated the Act by interrogating prospective employees about their union views, but concluded that a representation vote could still be held.

The Board ordered the employer to cease and desist from such practices, post a remedial notice, and directed that a representation vote be taken.

One Board member dissented, finding that the employer's conduct warranted automatic certification.