Brian McLean

The applicant union filed an application for certification for employees at two plants operated by the responding party employer.

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support and ordered a representation vote for a single bargaining unit covering both plants.

The Board dismissed the intervenor union's objection under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, noting that only employers may invoke such an objection.

The Board also declined to seal the ballot box based on the intervenor's allegations of employer participation in the formation of the applicant union, finding insufficient facts pleaded to justify such a result.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant union applied for certification.

At the commencement of the hearing, the responding employer requested an adjournment because certain employees had written to the Board requesting the representation vote be overturned under s. 11(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, but had not received notice of the hearing.

The union objected on the basis that the employees' submissions were untimely and not delivered to the other parties.

The Board granted the adjournment, finding that regardless of the merit of the union's arguments, the employees should be given an opportunity to respond.

The applicant requested clarification of a prior Board decision and sought leave to withdraw its application in Board File 1015-99-U pursuant to Minutes of Settlement.

Although the application had already been dismissed in a previous decision, the Board granted leave to withdraw the application to eliminate any confusion.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by pressuring her into a settlement.

The Board held a hearing on preliminary issues, including whether the application disclosed a prima facie case.

The Board found that the union's conduct in explaining the consequences of proceeding to arbitration and pressuring the applicant to settle was appropriate in labour relations.

As the application did not disclose a prima facie case, it was dismissed.

The applicant employer appealed an Order to Pay made under the Employment Standards Act.

Shortly before the hearing, the applicant's solicitor requested an adjournment due to illness, which was not granted.

On the scheduled hearing date, neither the applicant nor its solicitor attended.

The Board refused to adjourn the matter in their absence, noting that a party cannot assume an adjournment request will be granted and should send a representative if counsel is unavailable.

The application was dismissed, and the funds held in trust were ordered to be paid to the responding party.

The parties filed Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to the parties to withdraw their respective applications.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision dated November 16, 1999.

The Board reviewed its general principles for reconsideration, which require new evidence that could not have been obtained by reasonable diligence or representations not previously considered.

The Board found that the applicant's arguments could have been made at the original consultation, no new evidence was proposed, and no important Board policy was involved.

The application for reconsideration was dismissed.

The union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that it was not bound by a collective agreement with the union, as it had never been certified nor signed a voluntary recognition agreement.

The Board found that the employer, through its actions and inactions, had conferred apparent authority on the Ontario Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors Association (ORAC) to bargain on its behalf.

Consequently, the employer was bound by the collective agreements negotiated by ORAC, and the grievance was arbitrable.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

The incumbent union intervened, arguing the application was untimely under section 67(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The issue turned on the interpretation of the word 'informed' in section 67(2)(c), specifically whether the parties were informed of the Minister's decision not to appoint a conciliation board on the date of the 'no-board' letter or the date it was received.

The Board held that 'informed' means the date the parties actually received the notice, not the date on the letter.

Consequently, the application was filed more than 30 days after the parties were informed, rendering it untimely.

The application was dismissed.

The employer appealed an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer on the basis that the complainants were anonymous, preventing the employer from knowing the case it had to meet.

After the Board ordered the complainants to identify themselves, three employees came forward.

The employer withdrew its appeal regarding those three employees and agreed to pay them.

The Board amended the Order to Pay to reflect the net amounts owed after statutory deductions and ordered the remaining funds held in trust to be returned to the employer.

The Vice-Chair also noted that issuing Orders to Pay for anonymous complainants violates natural justice.

The union applied for certification to represent stage employees of the Canadian Opera Company (COC).

Following a representation vote in which all voting employees supported the union, the COC argued the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process, alleging the union's true motive was to secure bargaining rights for a future, unbuilt opera house.

Alternatively, the COC sought to restrict the bargaining unit to its current rehearsal facilities based on alleged industry practice.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rejected the abuse of process argument, finding the union had legitimate interests in formalizing the existing relationship and expanding employment opportunities.

The Board also rejected the site-specific bargaining unit, granting a municipal-wide certificate to ensure stability of bargaining rights, noting the COC's ability to perform and build sets at various locations.

The applicant union won a representation vote for certification.

The employer requested that the Board order a new vote, arguing that the current workforce was not representative because a significant 'build-up' of employees was anticipated following a move to a larger facility.

The Board dismissed the employer's request and certified the union, finding that the employer failed to demonstrate a reasonable certainty that the anticipated build-up would occur, particularly given recent lay-offs and a lack of evidence regarding increased business demand.

The employer applied for a declaration confirming its assignment of mining work on a boundary pillar between two adjacent mining properties to the USWA, rather than the CEP.

The CEP claimed jurisdiction over the portion of the pillar located on the property where it held bargaining rights.

The Board confirmed the employer's assignment to the USWA, finding that the work would be sporadic, the CEP miners lacked current mining skills having worked in a plant environment for years, and it was unsafe and impractical to mine the pillar from the CEP's side of the property.

The applicant union filed applications for certification and to terminate the incumbent union's bargaining rights.

The incumbent union had been voluntarily recognized by the employer and entered into a collective agreement.

The applicant sought an immediate representation vote, relying on Board jurisprudence.

The employer and incumbent union argued that the incumbent had majority support prior to voluntary recognition and that the collective agreement was ratified by a majority of employees.

The Board balanced the competing policy objectives of holding quick representation votes and protecting legitimate representation rights during a collective agreement.

The Board decided to defer the representation vote until after the termination application is decided, and directed that both applications be heard together.

The employer and the union filed a joint application under section 58(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for the early termination of their collective agreement.

Three other labour organizations sought intervenor status to object to the early termination, arguing that the replacement collective agreement unlawfully expanded the union's bargaining rights to a new location, thereby depriving them of organizing opportunities.

The Board denied intervenor status, finding that the objections related to the terms of the new agreement rather than the preservation of the open period for representational challenges, which is the purpose of section 58(3).

The Board granted consent to the early termination of the collective agreement.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union, alleging it violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to pursue grievances regarding lost overtime and his subsequent layoff.

The applicant had been laid off after refusing to work a night shift upon returning from a workplace injury.

The union, after obtaining a legal opinion, concluded the grievance would not succeed at arbitration and withdrew it.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that even if the union's assessment of the grievance's merits was incorrect, its decision was considered, not flagrantly erroneous, and did not constitute arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union, alleging it failed to diligently pursue his discharge arbitration and failed to respond to his agent's request to raise an Occupational Health and Safety Act argument.

The Board dismissed the delay allegation, finding no evidence the union caused the arbitration delays.

However, the Board found the union's failure to communicate its decision not to pursue the OHSA argument constituted arbitrary conduct in violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board allowed the complaint in part but declined to order a remedy, as the applicant had since received an answer and the breach was not egregious.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union regarding events that occurred between October 1995 and November 1997 at an Ontario Hydro nuclear facility.

At that time, the facility was under federal jurisdiction and subject to the Canada Labour Code.

Effective April 1, 1998, jurisdiction was transferred to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The responding parties objected to the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it had no statutory authority to apply the Labour Relations Act retrospectively to events that occurred prior to the transfer, nor did it have the power to apply the provisions of the Canada Labour Code.

The applicant applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party trade union no longer represented the employees in the bargaining unit.

The applicant estimated the bargaining unit at 400 employees, while the union and employer indicated there were over 900 employees.

After the Board directed submissions on the disparity, the applicant conceded it had no basis to challenge the employer's list.

As less than forty per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the union, the Board dismissed the application.