B.K. Lee

The complainant, a registered nurse with 27 years of service, was suspended pending an investigation into her conduct.

At a disciplinary meeting, she was given the choice to resign or be terminated.

Her union representative, who was also her charge nurse and had a conflict of interest, was instructed by a union official to only take notes and not speak.

The hospital refused the complainant's requests to adjourn the meeting to obtain proper representation.

The complainant signed a letter of resignation, which a subsequent arbitration board found to be voluntary, precluding a hearing on the merits of her termination.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by acting arbitrarily and discriminatorily in failing to provide meaningful representation.

The Board also found that the hospital violated section 64 by intentionally interfering with the complainant's right to union representation.

Exercising its broad remedial authority under section 89(4), the Board directed that the complainant's termination grievance be heard on its merits, notwithstanding the prior arbitration award.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent five truck drivers employed by the respondent milk transport company.

The parties disputed the appropriate geographic description of the bargaining unit.

The respondent argued for the Board's standard municipality-based units, which would have fragmented the five employees into multiple units, some with only one employee.

The Board departed from its general practice, finding that the employees, though residing in different municipalities, all worked within the same general area and were part of a single integrated operation.

The Board defined the bargaining unit to encompass employees working in and out of the Regional Municipalities of York and Durham, and granted the certificate.

Following a finding that the employer committed an unfair labour practice by failing to disclose a planned plant closure during collective bargaining, the Board held a hearing to assess damages for the union's loss of opportunity to negotiate.

The Board found that the union would likely have achieved improved severance and priority hiring rights had the closure been disclosed.

The Board awarded damages to affected employees equal to 25% of the difference between the severance they received and the severance paid to non-bargaining unit employees, along with priority hiring rights at other plants.

The respondent employer sought reconsideration of an earlier Board decision, alleging that the Board violated the principles of natural justice by holding a 'Full Board' meeting to discuss the case before issuing its decision.

The Board denied the request, explaining that Full Board meetings are an institutionalized practice used to discuss the policy implications of draft decisions without deciding the facts or holding a vote.

The Board concluded that this practice is consistent with the inherent nature of administrative decision-making and complies with the statutory mandate to determine its own procedure.

The Canadian Paperworkers Union applied for certification to represent employees at Cooper Corrugated Containers Ltd. A group of employees filed a petition opposing the certification.

The Board held a hearing to determine the voluntariness of the petition.

The Board found the testimony of the petition's originator lacked credibility and failed to establish that the petition was a voluntary expression of the employees' true wishes.

Consequently, the Board declined to order a representation vote and granted interim certification to the union.

The Carpenters' Union referred a grievance to the Board alleging the employer violated the provincial collective agreement by employing non-union carpenters.

Concurrently, a group of employees applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

The Board found that employees hired prior to the statutory extension of the union's province-wide bargaining rights were "employees" in the bargaining unit with status to bring a termination application, and were entitled to a reasonable opportunity to join the union to preserve their employment.

The Board further found the termination petition to be voluntary, despite the employer's known opposition to the union, and ordered a representation vote.

The employer was also found in violation of the collective agreement and ordered to cease employing non-union carpenters, subject to the pre-existing employees' opportunity to join the union.

The complainant filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the respondent union and its officials violated sections 3, 68, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act by wrongfully cancelling his union membership.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaints for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the motion and dismissed the complaints, finding that section 3 does not create a substantive offence, section 68 only applies to employees in a bargaining unit (which the complainant was not), and section 70 requires an element of intimidation or coercion to compel a person, which was not alleged in the mere cancellation of membership.

The applicant union applied for certification and alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices during the organizing campaign.

The employer held a captive audience meeting where it threatened job security and plant closure if the union was successful.

The following day, the employer discharged four key union supporters.

The Board found that the employer's conduct violated sections 64, 66, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

Given the severity of the employer's interference, the Board concluded that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained through a representation vote.

Finding that the union had membership support adequate for collective bargaining, the Board certified the union pursuant to section 8 of the Act.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent hospital violated the statutory freeze provisions of section 13 of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that a collective agreement was in operation at the relevant time by virtue of the Inflation Restraint Act, 1982 (Bill 179).

The Board sustained the preliminary objection, finding that sections 9 and 13 of Bill 179 extended the compensation plan and continued the collective agreement in force, thereby precluding the application of the statutory freeze.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union sought certification, and a dispute arose regarding the composition of the bargaining unit.

The Board determined that a First Cook exercised managerial functions and was excluded, while a Housekeeper with minor supervisory duties was included.

The Board also found that a maintenance worker who received a $5,000 advance on wages to buy a truck upon turning 65 remained an employee at the time of the application.

The Board directed that the representation vote ballots be counted.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

Although the union filed membership cards for 68% of the bargaining unit, a group of employees filed a timely statement in opposition (petition).

The Board held an inquiry into the voluntariness of the petition.

The Board found that the main proponent of the petition had openly established a link between the petition and company management in the minds of employees, creating a reasonable fear that management would learn who signed.

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

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's ambulance service.

The sole issue was whether a supervisor, Mr. Ball, exercised managerial functions under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act and should be excluded from the unit.

The Board found that Mr. Ball's duties were primarily those of a lead hand, with limited supervisory functions such as verifying time cards and routine scheduling.

He did not possess independent managerial discretion regarding hiring, firing, or other significant matters.

The Board concluded he was an employee within the meaning of the Act and included him in the bargaining unit, issuing a formal certificate to the applicant.

The applicant union sought to set aside a representation vote, alleging that the intervener union made misleading statements to employees regarding the potential loss of jobs and changes to the bargaining unit scope if the applicant were certified.

The Board found that the statements made by the intervener's president were within the permissible bounds of electioneering and did not amount to campaign trickery that would impair the employees' ability to express their true wishes.

The application for certification was dismissed as the applicant did not receive majority support.

The applicant applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union raised preliminary objections that the application was untimely and that the applicant lacked status as an employee in the bargaining unit because he was not hired through the union hiring hall.

The Board dismissed the timeliness objection, accepting the applicant's earlier correspondence as a timely application despite technical defects.

The Board also dismissed the status objection, distinguishing previous case law because the applicant was a long-standing employee hired before the union obtained bargaining rights, not someone hired to avoid collective bargaining obligations.

The matter was directed to be listed for continuation.

The employer applied for reconsideration of a Board decision certifying the union, arguing that it had entered into a settlement agreement regarding the status of its taxi drivers without adequate legal advice.

The Board dismissed the application, noting that the employer was initially represented by experienced counsel who had raised the relevant issues, but the employer subsequently chose to proceed without counsel and settle the matter.

The Board held that allowing a party to resile from a settlement agreement months later due to an alleged lack of legal advice would undermine the settlement process and prejudice the union.

The applicants applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union raised preliminary objections that the applicants lacked status because they were not employees in the bargaining unit (carpenters and carpenters' apprentices) at the time the application was made.

The Board found that on the date of the application, the applicants were employed as labourers, not carpenters.

The Board held that in construction industry termination cases, it only looks at the date of the making of the application to determine employee status.

Since the applicants were not employed in the bargaining unit on that date, they lacked status to bring the application.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant, a spare power house operator, alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to assist him in obtaining a permanent power house operator position.

The complainant lacked the newly established qualifications for the position and had a history of poor judgment and safety violations in his spare role.

The Board found that the union was aware of these issues and that the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case that the union's decision not to support his grievance was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union sought to certify a bargaining unit of registered nurses at the respondent's nursing home.

The respondent argued that all its nurses exercised managerial functions and were therefore excluded from collective bargaining under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board reviewed the duties of the nurses, including their supervisory, disciplinary, and evaluative roles over lesser-skilled staff.

The Board concluded that the nurses' functions were primarily professional and coordinating in nature, rather than managerial, as they lacked effective control over the employment status of other employees.

The Board found the nurses to be employees within the meaning of the Act and granted the certification.

The applicant union sought certification, and a representation vote was held.

The respondent employer and objecting employees alleged that the union's president breached the Registrar's 'silent period' direction by speaking to employees waiting to vote.

Although there was no direct evidence of what was said, the union president did not testify to explain his conduct.

The Board drew an adverse inference, concluded the direction was likely contravened, and set aside the vote, ordering a new representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification and filed documentary evidence of membership supported by a Form 8 Declaration.

During the hearing, it was revealed that the union official who signed the Form 8 Declaration had not made the necessary inquiries of the collectors regarding how the membership cards were solicited and whether the initiation fees were properly collected.

The Board held that the Form 8 Declaration did not meet the strict standards required, as the declarant lacked the requisite personal knowledge or knowledge gained from proper inquiries.

Consequently, the membership evidence solicited by persons other than the declarant was rejected, and the application for certification was dismissed.