B. Armstrong

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that A & P and A & P Drug Mart Limited are one employer.

The union represented employees in A & P's retail stores, but the company operated its pharmacies through a separate corporate entity, paying pharmacy assistants lower wages.

The respondents argued the union delayed in bringing the application.

The Board found the two entities were engaged in related activities under common control and direction.

The Board also held the union exercised due diligence, as it filed grievances immediately upon learning of the wage discrepancy and only later discovered the separate corporate identity.

The Board declared the entities to be one employer.

The applicant sought a declaration to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union raised a preliminary issue, arguing the Board should defer its determination until a pending arbitration decided whether certain employees were properly recalled under the collective agreement.

The Board declined to await the arbitration outcome, noting the need to avoid further delay and the possibility that the arbitration decision might not resolve the Board's issues regarding voter eligibility.

The Board directed that the application proceed on its merits.

The union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing the application, which contained signatures of employees who had previously signed union membership cards.

At the hearing, the representative for the objectors could not provide first-hand evidence regarding the origination of the petition and how the other signatures were obtained.

The Board found that due to these evidentiary gaps, it could not be satisfied that the petition represented the voluntary wishes of the employees.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and granted the certificate to the union.

One Board Member dissented, arguing that a vote should be ordered where there is no allegation of employer involvement and the evidentiary gaps are due to laypersons' unfamiliarity with Board procedures.

The applicant union sought certification for employees at the respondent's soft drink plant.

The respondent employer argued the application was tainted because a foreman participated in the union's membership campaign.

The Board found the foreman acted contrary to the employer's interests and did not exert undue influence, so the application was not barred by section 12 of the Labour Relations Act.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing the union, sponsored by a salesman.

The Board found the salesman was not managerial but was perceived as close to management and had threatened employees' job security while circulating the petition.

Consequently, the Board gave no weight to the petition and granted outright certification based on the union's membership evidence.

The complainant union alleged that the employer discharged seven employees, including a foreman, contrary to the Labour Relations Act following an unsuccessful certification campaign.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board should defer to arbitration under the collective agreement with the incumbent union.

The Board declined to defer, finding the allegations of collusion between the employer and incumbent union went beyond the administration of the collective agreement.

On the merits, the Board dismissed the complaint, accepting the employer's evidence that the decision to close the pipe shop and contract out the work was made for legitimate business reasons to achieve cost savings, and was not motivated by anti-union animus.

The respondent applied for reconsideration of a Board decision that denied an adjournment and found it had illegally terminated four employees.

The respondent argued the adjournment should have been granted due to a death in the owner's family, and that the owner failed to attend the hearing due to a misunderstanding of his solicitor's advice.

The Board found the owner had continued to work despite the bereavement and had intentionally misrepresented facts.

The Board also found the owner had ignored his solicitor's advice to attend the hearing.

The application for reconsideration was dismissed.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices by discharging two telephone operators for their union activity and by violating the statutory freeze period.

The employer claimed the discharges were due to the failure of an experimental telephone dispatch system.

The Board found that the employer failed to discharge its reverse onus to prove the terminations were free of anti-union animus, given the employer's knowledge of the employees' union support and previous anti-union conduct.

The Board also held that the unilateral elimination of the telephone operator classification and the alteration of the dispatchers' hours of work during the freeze period violated section 70(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer was ordered to reinstate the grievors with compensation.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer's foreman interfered with the union's administration by soliciting employees to revoke their union membership and dues check-off.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the foreman initiated discussions and used promises of protection to encourage revocations, which constituted a violation of section 56 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the employer to cease and desist, compensate the union for lost dues from one employee whose revocation was directly caused by the foreman, and post a notice of the decision.