Brain Herlich

The applicants applied for a declaration terminating the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union argued the application was untimely because a collective agreement had been concluded, an issue that was the subject of a separate, ongoing unfair labour practice complaint.

The applicants and the intervener employer requested that the Board direct a representation vote and seal the ballot box pending the resolution of the timeliness issue.

The Board declined to order a vote, citing concerns about jurisdiction, employee expectations, and the potential labour relations impact of holding and later nullifying a vote.

The matter was adjourned pending the determination of the related complaint.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated the statutory freeze provisions under section 81(1) of the Labour Relations Act by unilaterally changing its policy regarding sales commissions on returns and account corrections.

The employer argued that the change was part of its normal business practice and within its management rights.

The Board applied the 'reasonable expectations' test and found that the complete elimination of commissions in these circumstances, contrary to a policy that had been in place for at least five years, was not within the reasonable expectations of the employees.

The Board declared that the employer violated the Act and ordered compensation for affected bargaining unit members.

The applicants, both working foremen, applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights for two separate bargaining units (sheet metal workers and roofers) of the employer.

The Board found that the petition circulated by the applicant in the sheet metal unit was not voluntary, as his duties and involvement in seeking concessions would lead employees to reasonably perceive him as acting on behalf of management.

That application was dismissed.

However, the Board found the petition in the roofers' unit to be voluntary, as the applicant circulating it did not have similar duties or involvement.

The Board directed a representation vote for the roofers' unit.

The complainant alleged that the respondent employer violated section 50(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by terminating his employment in reprisal for his testimony at a previous Board hearing.

The employer requested an adjournment on the day of the hearing, citing financial inability to bring witnesses, which the Board denied.

Proceeding in the employer's absence, the Board accepted the complainant's uncontradicted evidence that he was publicly vilified, reassigned to a lesser role, and ultimately terminated after testifying on behalf of a former colleague.

The Board found the employer failed to discharge the reverse onus under section 50(5) and ordered the payment of damages.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent security guards employed by the respondent.

The parties agreed on all matters in dispute and waived their right to a formal hearing.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act.

Based on the documentary evidence of membership, the Board was satisfied that more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant.

The Board ordered that a certificate will issue to the applicant.

The applicant union sought leave to withdraw its grievance referral under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act after the matter was adjourned for negotiations.

The respondent employer requested that the grievance be dismissed.

The Board found no compelling reason to prevent the applicant from withdrawing its own grievance and granted leave to withdraw the referral.

In an application for certification, the union objected to the Labour Relations Officer disclosing the membership count before the list of employees was finalized.

The union argued this invited gerrymandering of challenges.

The Board dismissed the objection, clarifying that while parties must finalize their positions on the employee list before the count is announced, all challenges do not need to be fully resolved or litigated first.

The officer's disclosure was consistent with the Board's longstanding practice.

A Labour Relations Officer was appointed to inquire into the remaining dispute regarding the employee list.

The union referred a grievance regarding a 5-day suspension imposed on the grievor for physically touching a manager during a meeting.

Following the incident, the grievor was terminated for absenteeism, but the parties settled the termination grievance with a reinstatement.

The employer then imposed the suspension for the earlier physical altercation.

The union argued the employer was precluded from imposing discipline after settling the termination.

The Board held that the employer was not precluded from imposing discipline for a separate incident, but found the employer's failure to disclose its intention to discipline during settlement discussions demonstrated a lack of good faith.

Considering the grievor's conduct, prior record, and the employer's bad faith, the Board substituted a written warning for the 5-day suspension.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint and a related employer application under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act following the employer's decision to introduce desktop publishing technology at The Mississauga News, which effectively closed the unionized composing room at the production division.

The Board dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint, finding the technological change was motivated by legitimate economic and business reasons rather than anti-union animus.

However, the Board granted the related employer declaration, finding that the production division and The Mississauga News carried on related activities under common control and direction, and declared The Mississauga News bound to the composing room collective agreement.

The complainant alleged that his employment was terminated in reprisal for raising health and safety concerns, contrary to section 24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The complainant sought an adjournment to compel a Ministry of Labour inspector to testify, which the Board denied due to statutory compellability restrictions and lack of notice.

On the merits, the Board found that the complainant's discharge was the result of an ongoing clash of management styles and his refusal to follow the employer's directions, rather than any health and safety work refusal or request for a Ministry inspection.

The complaint was dismissed.

The intervener union, Local 272, requested that the Board not give effect to the results of a representation vote in which the applicant Association was successful.

Local 272 alleged that the employer provided improper support to the Association by settling an unfair labour practice complaint on the day of the vote, or alternatively, that the Association improperly exploited the perception of such support in its election campaign literature.

The Board found no evidence of improper employer support or collusion.

Furthermore, the Board concluded that the Association's campaign leaflet was not false or misleading and did not impair the critical faculties of a reasonable voter.

The request to set aside the vote was dismissed.

The applicant union filed displacement applications for certification at two hospitals.

The intervener union objected that the applications were untimely under the Labour Relations Act and the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA).

The Board found that because the interest arbitration process under the HLDAA had commenced and the resulting collective agreements were either not yet finalized or finalized within 90 days of the two-year statutory period, the open periods were delayed by operation of section 10(12) of the HLDAA.

Consequently, the applications were dismissed as untimely.

The Board declined the intervener's request to impose a bar on future applications by the applicant.

The applicant union requested a new representation vote after losing the initial vote, arguing that the ballot was defective because its name appeared only in English, despite the ballot otherwise being bilingual.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the applicant had reviewed the sample ballot prior to the vote, chose not to object to avoid delaying the vote, and signed a waiver of objection after the vote.

The Board applied its established policy that a party cannot 'lie in the bushes' and challenge a vote's regularity only after learning it lost.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its certification applications after meetings with a Labour Relations Officer had commenced and after the respondent employer raised 'non-pay' allegations regarding the union's membership evidence.

The employer argued the applications should be dismissed and the non-pay allegations adjudicated.

The Board declined to adjudicate the non-pay allegations in the context of a withdrawn application.

However, interpreting its Practice Note No. 7 in light of recent procedural changes, the Board held that a request to withdraw made after a Labour Relations Officer has met with the parties should result in the dismissal of the applications.

The applications were accordingly dismissed.

The applicant filed an application for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The ballot box was sealed pending a determination of whether the applicant was a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1)(p) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the applicant had only completed two of the five steps required to establish trade union status prior to the application date, as it had not admitted members, ratified the constitution, or elected officers.

The application was dismissed.

The union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed petitions (statements of desire) opposing the application.

The Board held hearings to determine the voluntariness of these petitions.

Evidence showed that management held captive audience meetings, questioned an employee about union membership, and that the petitions were circulated during working hours in areas frequented by management.

The Board concluded that the objectors failed to meet the onus of establishing that the petitions were voluntary, as employees would reasonably suspect management involvement.

The Board found the union had the requisite membership support for certification, pending resolution of remaining bargaining unit composition issues.

The complainant alleged that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to accept reinstatement conditions in a timely manner, failing to advance a grievance regarding a hospital bill, and failing to advance a grievance for long-term disability benefits.

The Board found that the union acted reasonably and that the delays and failures to file timely claims were attributable to the complainant's own inaction.

The complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The Board found that not less than 35% of the employees in the voting constituency were members of the applicant.

The intervener union challenged the collection of membership evidence, alleging irregularities in the mail-in process and the Form 9 declaration.

The Board directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be taken but ordered the ballot box sealed pending further submissions or a hearing regarding the intervener's allegations.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer argued that the union should be required to prove its trade union status, despite a Board finding of status made the previous day in a separate proceeding involving a different employer, because the respondent had no notice of that hearing.

The respondent also objected to the Labour Relations Officer conducting a meeting while the status issue was outstanding.

The Board rejected both arguments, holding that under section 105 of the Labour Relations Act, a previous finding of status is prima facie evidence in subsequent proceedings, and the respondent failed to call evidence to rebut it.

The Board also confirmed that an outstanding status issue does not preclude an Officer's meeting.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to bargain in good faith.

Despite the union serving notice to bargain and sending four separate written invitations over four months to arrange negotiating meetings, the employer consistently refused to meet.

The employer insisted that the union first reply to a prior letter requesting particulars on how to join the union.

The Board found this to be a fundamental and blatant violation of the duty to bargain in good faith, noting that the union's failure to provide such information did not relieve the employer of its statutory obligations.

The Board declared that the employer failed to bargain in good faith and directed it to meet with the union forthwith.