C. G. Bourne

The applicant union applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging a sale of a business from Shiffer-Hillman Company Limited to the respondent, 529592 Ontario Limited.

The predecessor company went into receivership, and its former vice-president incorporated the respondent to purchase assets, including the trade name, patterns, and some inventory, from the receiver.

The respondent operated from the same location, used the same telephone number, and employed several former employees, though it contracted out manufacturing and sold directly to the public.

The Board found that the transaction constituted a sale of a part of a business, as the respondent acquired essential components, notably the location and goodwill associated with the trade name, to carry on a restructured version of the predecessor's business.

The respondent was declared bound by the collective agreement.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by terminating or reducing the hours of several temporary workers supplied by employment agencies.

This action was allegedly taken in response to a grievance filed by the union claiming these workers were employees covered by the collective agreement.

The Board found that the agency workers were employees of the employer for the purposes of the Act, given the high degree of control exercised over them.

The Board further held that the employer's actions in reducing their hours and terminating them were motivated by anti-union animus and a desire to penalize them for the grievance, thereby violating sections 64, 66, and 80(1) of the Act.

The employer was ordered to reinstate the workers with compensation.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer committed numerous unfair labour practices following an application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer engaged in a pervasive campaign of anti-union animus, including unlawful layoffs, constructive discharge, harassment, and unilateral alterations to terms and conditions of employment during the statutory freeze period.

The Board ordered extensive remedial relief, including reinstatement with compensation, restoration of privileges, and union access to employer-convened meetings.

The applicant union sought certification for a single bargaining unit of all occasional teachers employed by the respondent board of education.

The respondent argued for four separate units, dividing teachers by elementary/secondary panels and by short-term/long-term assignments.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rejected the short-term/long-term division, finding it would cause undue fragmentation given the fluid nature of occasional teaching assignments.

However, the Board accepted the division between elementary and secondary panels, citing historical dichotomies, different qualifications, and distinct bargaining priorities.

The Board also determined that its standard 'thirty day rule' would apply to calculate the number of employees in the bargaining units at the time of the application.

The complainants alleged that the respondent employer breached section 66(a) of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to return them to work following a legal strike.

The employer claimed the refusal was based on its policy not to reinstate employees charged with strike-related offences, and that the final list of non-returnees was negotiated with the union based on seniority.

The Board found no anti-union animus in the employer's general policy or its application to four of the complainants.

However, the Board concluded that the refusal to reinstate one complainant, a union steward and picket captain, was motivated by anti-union animus.

The Board ordered his reinstatement with compensation.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Board decision dismissing her application under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The applicant also requested a representation vote, relying on an undated petition signed by 46 employees.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the union had majority support at the time the voluntary recognition agreement was entered into.

The Board held that a representation vote under section 60(2) can only be ordered where there is uncertainty as to the union's entitlement to represent the employees at the time the agreement was made, which was not the case here.

The complainant Machinists union filed a complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the assignment of work involving the set-up and operation of a Horizontal Boring Mill at the Darlington Construction site.

The employer, Ontario Hydro, had assigned the work to members of the U.A. The Board considered criteria including collective bargaining relationships, skill and training, economic considerations, and employer practice.

The Board found that economic considerations and employer practice favoured the U.A., as the machine was used for a limited purpose in a pipe fabrication shop where U.A. members were already working.

The Board confirmed the assignment to the U.A. and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant trade union applied for certification, demonstrating membership support of approximately 72 per cent of the bargaining unit.

The respondent employer and a group of objecting employees requested that the Board order a representation vote, alleging that the organizing campaign was characterized by a climate of intimidation, particularly affecting the large number of Vietnamese refugees in the workforce.

The Board heard evidence of isolated threats but found no pattern of intimidation related to the collection of membership evidence.

Declining to order a vote based on generalized cultural characteristics or surmise, the Board exercised its discretion to certify the union based on the unequivocal membership evidence.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent union was not entitled to represent the employees at the time a voluntary recognition agreement was entered into with the intervener employer.

The applicant conceded that the union had majority support but requested the Board exercise its discretion under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act to order a representation vote.

The Board declined to order a vote, finding no evidence to justify upsetting the settlement between the union and employer.

The Board also declined the union's request for an order confirming its representative status, noting this would inappropriately grant it certified status.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant filed an unfair labour practice complaint against his former employer nearly three years after his discharge, alleging he was terminated for exercising rights under the Labour Relations Act.

He had previously pursued an unsuccessful arbitration and two unsuccessful complaints against his union.

The employer raised a preliminary objection based on extreme delay.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board exercised its discretion under section 89(4) of the Act to decline to inquire into the complaint, finding the delay extreme, the explanation insufficient, and no overriding public policy reasons to proceed.

The employer filed complaints alleging the union violated the Labour Relations Act by calling an unlawful strike and breaching a prior settlement agreement.

A union business agent had instructed employees to remain in the cafeteria for 15 minutes past their break to resolve a dispute between managers.

The Board assumed a technical breach of the Act but declined to issue a remedy, noting the stoppage was brief, unpremeditated, and resolved the underlying issue.

The Board also found no clear violation of the settlement agreement.

The complaints were dismissed.

The applicant union filed a complaint regarding a work assignment dispute over the installation of boiler systems at a generating station.

The respondent employer and union argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 91(14) of the Labour Relations Act because the parties' collective agreements required such disputes to be referred to the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board (IJDB).

The applicant contended the IJDB was no longer functioning.

The Board found that the IJDB procedures were still operative and that the parties were bound by them.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint and terminated the proceedings.

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the respondent employers engaged in a series of corporate reorganizations and contracting-out arrangements designed to defeat the union's bargaining rights.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employers violated the Labour Relations Act by laying off unionized employees and transferring their work to other entities to avoid collective bargaining obligations.

The Board also found that the primary employer failed to bargain in good faith.

The Board ordered extensive remedial relief, including the reinstatement of the affected employees with back pay and a direction to commence collective bargaining.

Applications for a declaration of a sale of a business and for consent to prosecute were dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The employer and a group of objecting employees opposed the application, filing a statement of desire signed by several employees who had previously signed union membership cards.

The Board found that the employer had engaged in actions, including changing a key union supporter's shifts and altering pay cheque distribution days, that would likely be viewed as a response to the union organizing campaign.

Furthermore, the involvement of an individual perceived as connected to management in the origination of the statement of desire led the Board to conclude that the statement did not represent a voluntary expression of the employees' wishes.

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

The complainant, a journeyman pipe fitter, was dismissed shortly after he refused to use electrical fusion tools that lacked a C.S.A. label and requested a safety inspector.

The employer claimed the dismissal was due to poor performance and a refusal to work as a welder's helper.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving that the dismissal was not motivated by anti-safety animus.

The Board ordered the employer to compensate the complainant for lost wages.

The applicant trade union requested that the Board amplify or clarify its previous decision declaring the respondents to be one employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, specifically regarding whether the declaration had retrospective effect.

The Board held that unless a section 1(4) declaration is specifically stated otherwise, it has force and effect from the time the associated or related activities commenced, not just from the date of the declaration.

The Board declined to reopen or reconsider its declaration to limit its retrospective effect.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of dependent contractors working as oil burner servicemen for the respondent.

The respondent argued the individuals were independent contractors.

The Board applied the statutory definition of 'dependent contractor' under section 1(1)(h) of the Labour Relations Act.

Finding that the contractors were economically dependent on the respondent and that their relationship more closely resembled that of an employee than an independent contractor, the Board concluded they were dependent contractors.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to schedule a further hearing regarding the voluntariness of statements of desire filed by some contractors.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent office, clerical, and technical employees of the respondent credit union.

The parties agreed on most matters but disputed the exclusion of several positions from the bargaining unit.

The Board determined that the Teller/Payroll Clerk, Headteller, Teller/Supervisor, Assistant Manager, and Loan Officer did not exercise managerial functions or act in a confidential capacity relating to labour relations, and were therefore included in the unit.

However, the Steno/Receptionist was excluded due to her confidential duties.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union filed an application alleging a sale of business and related employer status between the respondents.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application without a hearing, arguing the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case and demanding further particulars.

The Board held that the application made out a prima facie case and that the statutory reverse onus provisions limit the extent to which an applicant must particularize facts exclusively within the respondents' knowledge.

However, the Board directed the applicant to provide further particulars regarding specific allegations of improper conduct.

The Board also deferred ruling on the intervener's status until it adduced evidence of a valid collective agreement.

The complainant alleged he was discharged by the respondent contrary to section 66(a) of the Labour Relations Act for his union activities.

The respondent claimed the discharge was due to the complainant's involvement in overcharging a client.

The Board found that the respondent's actions, including circumventing the union's bargaining rights and abruptly discharging the complainant shortly before collective bargaining was to begin, demonstrated anti-union animus.

The Board concluded the discharge was tainted by anti-union motivation and ordered the complainant's reinstatement with compensation, subject to a reduction for a brief delay in filing the complaint.