B. Armstrong

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) and Extendicare filed cross-complaints alleging bad faith bargaining.

Local bargaining unit members signed a memorandum of settlement with the employer without the required signature of ONA's central Employment Relations Officer, contrary to ONA's constitution and established bargaining practices.

The employer was aware of ONA's practice and had been explicitly warned by the central representative not to negotiate directly with the local committee.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the local committee lacked actual or ostensible authority to bind ONA.

Consequently, no valid collective agreement existed.

The Board found the employer bargained in bad faith by circumventing the union, while ONA did not violate the Act by refusing to recognize the void agreement.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that two hospitals violated the statutory freeze period under section 13 of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act by increasing employee parking fees during collective bargaining.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the hospitals had a well-established pattern of periodically reviewing and adjusting parking rates.

The Board held that the increases constituted 'business as before' and did not violate the statutory freeze.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent company terminated the employment of six grievors in violation of the Labour Relations Act due to anti-union animus following an unsuccessful certification vote.

The Board found that the termination of one grievor, who had a long history of poor performance, was not motivated by anti-union animus and dismissed that portion of the complaint.

However, the Board found that the failure to reassign or rehire the other five grievors after their department was closed was motivated by anti-union animus on the part of the general manager.

The Board directed the parties to attempt to agree on the appropriate remedies for the successful grievors.

The union brought applications under sections 1(4), 63, and 89 of the Labour Relations Act challenging the bona fides of Caressant Care's contracting out of dietary and housekeeping services to Versa Services at a new nursing home.

The Board found the arrangement to be a genuine, arm's-length contracting out where Versa Services assumed true control and responsibility for the selection, training, and supervision of the employees.

As the employer relinquished control over the performance of the work and employment relations, the Board dismissed the applications and complaint.

The union applied for certification.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that employees who had received notice of termination should not be counted as employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board ruled that since the individuals were at work on the date of the application, they must be counted as employees.

Following this ruling, the union requested leave to withdraw its application.

Given the stage of the proceedings, the Board denied the request to withdraw and dismissed the application.

The applicant union applied for certification of full-time and part-time employees.

A pre-hearing representation vote was held.

For the part-time unit, no ballots were cast, and the application was dismissed.

For the full-time unit, the union won the vote.

A group of employees objected, claiming they were not given an opportunity to vote and were misinformed by supervisory personnel.

The Board dismissed the objection without hearing evidence, finding that even if the allegations were true, the employees had adequate notice of the vote through posted forms and failed to direct their inquiries to the Returning Officer as instructed.

The Board certified the union for the full-time unit.

During a union certification application, the employer alleged that an employee had signed a union membership card without paying the required $1.00 initiation fee.

The Board held a hearing to assess the credibility of the employee and the union collector.

The Board preferred the evidence of the union collector, finding that the employee had indeed paid the $1.00 fee.

The union's documentary evidence was found to comply with the Labour Relations Act.

The applicants, two of the three employees in the bargaining unit, applied under section 57(2) of the Labour Relations Act to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

A Board-appointed Vice-Chairman found that the application was voluntary and that the collective agreement had expired with no efforts made to negotiate a new one.

The Board adopted these findings, determined that not less than forty-five per cent of the employees had voluntarily signified they no longer wished to be represented by the union, and directed a representation vote by mailed ballot.

The applicant trade union requested that the Board amplify or clarify its previous decision declaring the respondents to be one employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, specifically regarding whether the declaration had retrospective effect.

The Board held that unless a section 1(4) declaration is specifically stated otherwise, it has force and effect from the time the associated or related activities commenced, not just from the date of the declaration.

The Board declined to reopen or reconsider its declaration to limit its retrospective effect.

The applicant, a university professor, applied for an exemption from paying mandatory union dues on religious grounds under section 47 of the Labour Relations Act.

He argued that his religious beliefs, which emphasize individual responsibility and reject coercion, prevented him from supporting the faculty association.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's long-standing opposition to the union was based on professional concerns about academic standards and collegiality, rather than religious conviction.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer discharged three employees for union activity.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit should be restricted to the employer's non-construction winter operations.

The Board found the employer failed to prove the discharges were not tainted by anti-union animus, violating sections 64 and 66 of the Labour Relations Act.

Given the employer's violations, including threatening an employee prior to a pre-hearing vote, the Board concluded the true wishes of employees were unlikely to be ascertained.

Finding the union had adequate membership support, the Board certified the union pursuant to section 8 of the Act and ordered reinstatement with compensation for the discharged employees.

The complainants, employees and union members, alleged that the union violated sections 60 and 63(5) of the Labour Relations Act by providing insufficient notice for a contract ratification vote and conducting the meeting improperly.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union's conduct, while involving a misunderstanding regarding the strike deadline, did not amount to arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith representation.

The Board concluded that the employees were given a reasonable opportunity to participate in the secret ballot vote and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit comprising cleaning and maintenance staff employed by the respondent.

The sole issue was whether resident superintendents should be excluded from the unit on the basis that they were part-time employees or had a separate community of interest.

The Board found that the resident superintendents regularly worked more than 24 hours per week and shared a community of interest with the full-time maintenance crews.

The Board concluded that a single comprehensive bargaining unit was appropriate and issued a certificate.

The applicant union sought certification to represent burlesque entertainers working at various taverns.

The central issue was whether the dancers were employees, dependent contractors, or independent contractors.

The Board applied common law tests, including the control test, the fourfold test, and the organization test, and reviewed extensive jurisprudence from other jurisdictions regarding entertainers.

The Board concluded that the transient dancers were self-employed independent contractors, as they controlled their own acts, were not integrated into the taverns' organizations, and were not economically dependent on any single tavern.

However, two 'house dancers' at the Colonial Tavern were found to be employees due to their stable relationship and economic dependence.

The applications respecting the other taverns were dismissed.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer violated the statutory freeze period under section 70 of the Act by altering its hiring procedure.

The dispute arose when the employer's Executive Director vetoed the hiring of a contract employee for a permanent position, despite the employee being the unanimous choice of the cottage staff.

The Board found that while the cottage staff had a long-standing privilege of making hiring recommendations, ultimate decision-making authority had always rested with senior management.

The employer's decision to overrule the recommendation was within its established management rights and did not constitute a breach of the statutory freeze.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated the statutory freeze period under section 70(1) of the Labour Relations Act by changing shift assignments and reducing the regular weekly hours of work for certain employees.

The employer argued the changes were valid business decisions made to accommodate a shift in program focus and funding constraints.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the layoffs and shift reassignments were a continuation of the employer's past practice of managing its operations and did not violate the Act.

However, the Board held that the implementation of a work-sharing arrangement, which reduced the hours of two employees instead of laying one off, was not an established practice and therefore violated the statutory freeze.

The Board ordered compensation for the affected employees and the posting of a notice.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that an employee was discharged for trade union activity, and a related employer application seeking a declaration that Contempoform Incorporated and CTF Construction Ltd. are one employer.

The Board found that the employee was unlawfully discharged for asserting his rights under the collective agreement and ordered his reinstatement with compensation.

The Board also declared the corporate entities to be one employer bound by the shop agreement, finding they were functionally interrelated and under common control.

The respondent employer sought reconsideration of a previous Board decision ordering it to compensate three employees for unlawful discharge.

The employer argued it was prejudiced because a former articling student of the Board subsequently represented the union at the compensation hearing.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no evidence of prejudice, noting the employer failed to raise the issue at the hearing, and observing that the employer was attempting to delay its legal obligations.

The Board directed that its compensation order be filed in the Supreme Court for enforcement.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and filed documentary evidence of membership for approximately 77% of the employees in the bargaining unit.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing certification, which included signatures of six employees who had previously signed union membership cards.

Subsequently, all six of these employees signed a revocation document reaffirming their support for the union.

The Board assessed the voluntariness of the petition and the revocation document.

Finding the revocation document to be a bona fide statement of the employees' wishes, the Board accepted it, leaving the union with more than 55% support.

The Board issued a certificate to the applicant without ordering a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, arguing that a representation vote should have been ordered due to inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the voluntariness of the revocations.

The applicant and a group of employees applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The Board considered whether the petition supporting the application was voluntary, given that the employees were also shareholders bound by a shareholders' agreement to further common interests.

The Board found that the employees were motivated by their financial interests as shareholders threatened by the continuation of the union's bargaining rights, and not by the legal covenant in the agreement.

The Board concluded the petition was a voluntary expression of their wishes and directed the application to continue to determine if the signatories were employees in the bargaining unit.