B. Lee

The complainant union alleged that the grievor was discharged from her employment as a waitress at a Swiss Chalet restaurant because of her support for the union, contrary to section 66 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer contended that the grievor was a probationary employee who was discharged for complaining about cleaning duties and interfering with other employees' work.

The Board found that the employer's evidence regarding the reasons for discharge was contradictory and lacked credibility.

Applying the reverse onus under section 89(5) of the Act, the Board concluded that the employer failed to prove that the discharge was not tainted by anti-union animus.

The Board ordered the grievor reinstated with compensation.

The union alleged the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by refusing to implement a first collective agreement awarded by a board of arbitration.

The employer argued the agreement was a nullity due to the Inflation Restraint Act.

The Board held that while the compensation plan within the agreement was of no effect under the Inflation Restraint Act, the remainder of the collective agreement remained valid and binding.

The Board directed the employer to implement the non-compensation provisions of the agreement.

In a consolidated application for certification and unfair labour practice complaint, the union requested that the employer be directed to proceed first due to the reverse onus provisions of section 89(5) of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer argued that the union should proceed first, consistent with the Board's past practice in section 8 applications.

The Board exercised its discretion and directed the employer to proceed first, noting that the bulk of the evidence would relate to the section 89 allegations for which the employer bears the legal burden.

Board Member Wightman dissented, arguing that the existing practice of requiring the union to proceed first should be maintained.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by imposing a three-day suspension on the grievor for refusing to shut down a paper machine.

The grievor claimed he lacked the training to safely perform the shutdown.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the grievor had received the necessary training and that his refusal was actually motivated by a dispute over call-in pay and meal tickets, rather than genuine safety concerns.

The Board concluded that the suspension was a valid disciplinary response to insubordination and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a bargaining unit consisting of two night auditors.

The respondent employer argued that the appropriate unit should be a 'tag end' unit encompassing all remaining unorganized employees, which would include nine employees across various classifications.

The Board found that the applicant's proposed unit was not viable for collective bargaining and would result in excessive fragmentation.

The Board determined that a 'tag end' unit was appropriate.

As the applicant had membership support of less than forty-five percent in the appropriate unit, the application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification for employees at a K-Mart store.

A pre-hearing representation vote was held, with the ballots of office and clerical staff segregated pending a determination of whether they should be included in the bargaining unit.

The Board examined the duties of the disputed employees, including merchandise co-ordinators, an advertising person, and various office clerks.

Finding a functional integration and community of interest between the office/clerical staff and the sales employees, the Board concluded they should be included in the same bargaining units (full-time and part-time).

The Board directed the ballots to be unsealed and counted.