C. G. Bourne

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The union filed documentary evidence of membership for more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the bargaining unit.

A group of employees filed statements of desire in opposition to the application.

The Board found that the voluntariness of the signatures of three union members who signed the statements of desire was not proven, as the person who witnessed most signatures did not witness theirs, and there was no evidence regarding the circumstances of their signing.

Consequently, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to direct a representation vote and granted the certification.

One Board member dissented, arguing a representation vote should have been held.

The applicant employer sought a declaration that a strike continued by the respondent union after the sale of a business was unlawful.

The Board held that under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, the sale of a business suspends a union's right to strike until the statutory preconditions, including notice to bargain and conciliation, have been exhausted with the successor employer.

However, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to declare the strike unlawful because the employer had taken the position that the sole employee was terminated, creating substantial uncertainty.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer raised two preliminary issues: it sought to adduce evidence of alleged intimidation by union supporters to justify a representation vote, and it requested that the Board's notice to employees be reposted in Italian.

The Board declined to entertain the intimidation charges because the employer failed to provide timely particulars despite having knowledge of the allegations weeks before the hearing.

The Board also denied the request to repost the notice in Italian, finding that the employer lacked standing to raise procedural objections on behalf of the employees.

Finding that more than fifty-five percent of the employees were union members, the Board granted certification.

The complainant trade union alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices by withholding a customary annual wage increase from bargaining unit employees during the statutory freeze period, and by engaging in surface bargaining.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer violated section 70 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to implement the wage increase in accordance with its past practice.

The Board also found that the employer violated the duty to bargain in good faith under section 14, and unlawfully interfered with the union's representation rights under sections 56, 58, 59, and 61, by insisting on discriminatory monetary proposals and directly communicating with employees to discourage ratification of a tentative agreement.

The Board ordered the employer to resume bargaining, table a non-discriminatory monetary position, and pay damages for the withheld wage increase.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging the respondent employer violated the collective agreement by sub-contracting carpentry work to a non-union employer.

The respondent argued the workers were hired by the hour and some were union members.

The Board found the arrangement was a sub-contract in violation of the agreement and that the employer failed to use the union hiring hall.

The Board awarded compensatory damages to the union for the lost job opportunities, equivalent to the wages and trust fund contributions that would have been paid to union members.

During a hearing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the complainant union sought leave to cross-examine its own witness, alleging the witness made a prior inconsistent statement and was hostile.

The Board reviewed the distinction between an 'adverse' and 'hostile' witness under section 24 of The Evidence Act and relevant jurisprudence, notably Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company v. Hanes.

The Board held that the complainant could introduce the alleged prior inconsistent statement; if proven, this statement could then be used as a factor to persuade the Board to declare the witness hostile, thereby permitting full cross-examination.

The applicant trade union sought certification as the bargaining agent for employees at one of the respondent's four warehouses in Metropolitan Toronto.

The respondent argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should encompass employees at all four warehouses.

The Board applied the Usarco factors to assess the community of interest among the employees.

Despite some functional integration and historical transfers, the Board found that the employees at the Humberline warehouse had a distinct community of interest due to geographic separation and local administration.

The Board concluded that the single-warehouse unit was appropriate for collective bargaining and directed the matter to be re-listed.

The complainant, an owner-operator of a crane, alleged that the respondent union breached the Labour Relations Act by negotiating a subcontracting clause that required owner-operators to have an agreement with the union, and then refusing to sign such an agreement with him.

This refusal effectively prevented him from working on unionized construction sites.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that owner-operators were not employees within the meaning of the provincial collective agreement, and therefore the union owed them no duty of fair representation under section 60 or 136(1).

The Board also found no violation of section 60a regarding hiring hall referrals, nor any unlawful intimidation or coercion under section 61.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent hospital violated the statutory freeze period under the Labour Relations Act and the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act by announcing a reorganization of its intravenous and outpatient blood collection services.

The reorganization would require nurses who previously worked straight days to rotate between two shifts.

The Board found that the expired collective agreement contained an express management rights clause permitting the hospital to determine work schedules and hours of work.

The Board held that the exercise of this express right during the freeze period did not constitute a violation, as it maintained the collective bargaining status quo.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for part-time graduate and research assistants at York University.

The Board had previously ruled in 1975 that these assistants were not employees under the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant argued that circumstances and the Board's approach had changed, citing a recent decision involving Carleton University.

The Board found that the graduate assistantship program at York was primarily a financial aid scheme to assist needy students and attract them to the university, rather than an employment relationship based on the university's dependency on their work.

The Board concluded that the assistants were not employees within the meaning of the Act and dismissed the application.

The applicant and a group of employees applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The Board considered whether the petition supporting the application was voluntary, given that the employees were also shareholders bound by a shareholders' agreement to further common interests.

The Board found that the employees were motivated by their financial interests as shareholders threatened by the continuation of the union's bargaining rights, and not by the legal covenant in the agreement.

The Board concluded the petition was a voluntary expression of their wishes and directed the application to continue to determine if the signatories were employees in the bargaining unit.

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 sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that A & P and A & P Drug Mart Limited are one employer.

The union represented employees in A & P's retail stores, but the company operated its pharmacies through a separate corporate entity, paying pharmacy assistants lower wages.

The respondents argued the union delayed in bringing the application.

The Board found the two entities were engaged in related activities under common control and direction.

The Board also held the union exercised due diligence, as it filed grievances immediately upon learning of the wage discrepancy and only later discovered the separate corporate identity.

The Board declared the entities to be one employer.

The complainant union alleged that the employer violated the statutory freeze under section 70(1) of the Labour Relations Act by contracting out garbage collection and landfill operations, resulting in the layoff of three employees.

The employer argued it was exercising a pre-existing management right for bona fide business reasons.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer had the right to contract out work prior to the freeze and had substantially progressed towards exercising that right before the freeze began.

The Board concluded that the employer's actions did not constitute an alteration of the terms or conditions of employment contrary to the Act.

The applicant sought a declaration to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union raised a preliminary issue, arguing the Board should defer its determination until a pending arbitration decided whether certain employees were properly recalled under the collective agreement.

The Board declined to await the arbitration outcome, noting the need to avoid further delay and the possibility that the arbitration decision might not resolve the Board's issues regarding voter eligibility.

The Board directed that the application proceed on its merits.

The union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing the application, which contained signatures of employees who had previously signed union membership cards.

At the hearing, the representative for the objectors could not provide first-hand evidence regarding the origination of the petition and how the other signatures were obtained.

The Board found that due to these evidentiary gaps, it could not be satisfied that the petition represented the voluntary wishes of the employees.

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

One Board Member dissented, arguing that a vote should be ordered where there is no allegation of employer involvement and the evidentiary gaps are due to laypersons' unfamiliarity with Board procedures.

The applicant union applied for certification to displace the incumbent union representing technical paramedical employees and to expand the bargaining unit to include previously unrepresented professional paramedical employees.

The Board held that in a displacement application, a union cannot sweep in a group of previously unrepresented employees solely on the strength of its membership support in the incumbent's unit.

The Board found the incumbent's bargaining unit to be the appropriate unit, ordered a representation vote for that unit, and dismissed the application as it related to the unrepresented professional employees due to insufficient membership support.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by refusing to allow the union to have legal counsel present during a grievance meeting.

The employer moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing there is no statutory or common law right to counsel during an in-house grievance procedure.

The Board dismissed the complaint, holding that a grievance procedure is a private process, not a quasi-judicial proceeding, and therefore the rules of natural justice do not apply.

However, the Board noted the union could potentially amend its complaint to argue that the employer's refusal interfered with the union's internal right to determine its own representation.

The Mechanical Contractors Association of Ontario and the Mechanical Contractors Association of Ottawa referred a grievance against Eastern Sheet Metal and Mechanical Contractors under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging failure to pay required industry fund contributions.

The Board held that it lacked jurisdiction under section 112a to determine a grievance between parties of like interest (an employer bargaining agency and an employer it represents).

However, the Board found that the non-payment of contributions violated section 134(2) of the Act, allowing the Board to grant relief under section 79.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of the respondent security company.

The respondent argued that all its employees were security guards and, under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act, could not be included in a bargaining unit with non-guards.

The Board found that by-law enforcement officers and airport security guards did not protect the property of an employer and were therefore not guards within the meaning of section 11.

The Board determined that a bargaining unit excluding actual guards was appropriate and issued a certificate to the applicant.