C. G. Bourne

Following a representation vote, a majority of professional engineers did not express a wish to be included in bargaining unit #1.

The Board determined that a separate bargaining unit for professional engineers (bargaining unit #2) was appropriate.

However, as the applicant union had the support of not more than forty-five per cent of the employees in bargaining unit #2, the application for certification in respect of that unit was dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed petitions in opposition to the union, which, if voluntary, would normally cause the Board to order a representation vote.

The Board found that the petitions were not voluntary because they were circulated in the presence of a lead person perceived as having managerial authority, and because the plant manager had created an atmosphere of concern for job security by mentioning possible plant closure and calling employees into his office.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and issued a certificate to the applicant.

One Board member dissented, arguing a vote should be ordered.

In a dissenting opinion, Board Member C. G. Bourne disagreed with the majority's application of section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act to find a related employer relationship.

The dissenting member emphasized that the original partnership was dissolved due to financial failure, and the respondent merely managed a new business owned by his wife without transferring any assets, goodwill, or customer lists.

The dissent concluded that section 1(4) was not intended to capture such circumstances and would have dismissed the grievance.

The complainant union alleged that the respondents terminated the grievor's employment in response to his initiation of a grievance under the collective agreement, contrary to section 76(2)(a) of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act.

The respondents argued that filing a grievance did not constitute the exercise of a right under the Act.

In an interim ruling, the Board held that the right to ensure compliance with a collective agreement through a grievance procedure is a fundamental lawful activity of a trade union protected by section 66 of the Act.

The Board ruled that the allegations, if proven, would constitute a violation of the Act and directed the matter to continue.

The applicant union sought certification for employees of the respondent, a non-profit social service organization for Metis and non-status Indians.

The respondent argued that its operations fell under federal jurisdiction pursuant to section 91(24) of the British North America Act because its members and beneficiaries were 'Indians' and its activities were of a federal character.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the respondent's operations did not constitute a federal undertaking or business, as they lacked a sufficient connection to Indian lands, the administration of reserves, or the exercise of rights under the Indian Act.

The Board concluded that provincial labour relations legislation applied and granted the certificate.

The applicant teachers' federation alleged that the respondent school board unlawfully locked out high school teachers when it closed the schools for two days during a work-to-rule campaign.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the school closure was motivated by collective bargaining considerations and thus constituted a lock-out rather than a purely administrative closure, the lock-out was lawful because the statutory preconditions—an ongoing lawful strike and public consideration of the teachers' final offer—had been met.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union sought a declaration under sections 55 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Brant Erecting and Hoisting and Provincial Steel were a single employer or that a sale of business had occurred.

The key principal of the unionized Brant Erecting, which had become insolvent, established a new non-unionized company, Provincial Steel, through his wife to carry on the same business.

The Board found that the two entities carried on associated or related businesses under common control and direction, despite not operating simultaneously.

The Board granted the section 1(4) declaration, binding Provincial Steel to the collective agreement, and found it unnecessary to decide the section 55 issue.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration alleging the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement (Schedule D) by paying lower wage rates under a different roadbuilders' agreement.

The respondent argued it had joined the roadbuilders' association and was thus bound by that agreement instead.

The Board held that an employer cannot unilaterally switch collective agreements by joining a new employers' organization without the written consent of the trade union, pursuant to section 44(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found the respondent remained bound by Schedule D and granted the union's request for a declaration and related relief.

The applicant union sought declarations under sections 1(4) and 55 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board dismissed the section 1(4) application regarding Spanway Building Systems Ltd. and Amorico Associates Ltd., finding they were not related businesses, though a corporate name change did not affect existing bargaining rights.

Regarding section 55, the Board found that a sale of a business occurred when Spanway Buildings Limited acquired the assets, premises, and exclusive franchise of Spanway Building Systems Ltd. Consequently, Spanway Buildings Limited was declared a successor employer bound by the provincial collective agreement.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer committed an unfair labour practice by withholding union dues deducted from employees' wages following an illegal strike.

The employer argued its actions were permitted under the collective agreement as a 'cancellation of dues deduction' penalty.

The Board found that continuing to deduct dues but holding them in escrow did not constitute a cancellation of dues deduction.

The Board held that the employer's unilateral impounding of union dues interfered with the administration of the trade union, violating section 56 of the Labour Relations Act, and ordered the employer to remit the withheld dues with interest.

The grievor requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsider its decision dismissing a complaint that he was discharged for union activities.

The grievor argued that because criminal charges for attempted vandalism—the employer's stated reason for discharge—were dismissed by a provincial court for lack of evidence, the discharge must have been for union activity.

The Board denied the request for reconsideration, explaining that the court and the Board apply different standards of proof and consider evidence for different purposes.

The Board found no new evidence or representations that would warrant reconsidering its finding that the employer did not violate the Labour Relations Act.

One Board member dissented, stating that the dismissal of the criminal charges warranted a reconsideration of the case.

The applicant union applied for certification for employees of a mushroom farm.

The respondent employer argued that the employees were 'employed in agriculture' and thus excluded from The Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that although the mushroom farm operated much like a manufacturing facility with a highly controlled environment and factory-like conditions, the fundamental process was the natural growing of a crop.

Therefore, the employees were engaged in agriculture and excluded from the Act.

The application for certification was dismissed.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith during negotiations for a first collective agreement.

The union argued the employer's wage offer and refusal to agree to a Rand formula check-off were designed to prevent ratification.

The Board found that while the employer took a firm position on union security, it was a legitimate response to the union's pressure tactics, which included suggesting a production slowdown and contacting customers.

The Board concluded the employer was engaging in hard bargaining rather than surface bargaining, and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant union alleged that a sale of a business occurred under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act when the respondent leased restaurant premises and purchased assets formerly used by Skyline Hotels Ltd. Skyline had surrendered its lease to the landlord, Campeau Corporation, following litigation.

Campeau subsequently leased the premises and sold the assets to the respondent.

The Board found that Skyline transferred surplus assets to Campeau, who then transferred them to the respondent, and that these separate transactions did not constitute a sale of a business.

The application was dismissed.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated section 56 of the Labour Relations Act by withholding union dues following an illegal strike.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the Board should defer to a board of arbitration already established to hear a related grievance, and that the union delayed in filing the complaint.

The Board declined to defer to arbitration, finding the complaint extended beyond the interpretation of the collective agreement and involved allegations of interference with the union's capacity to act as bargaining agent.

The Board also dismissed the delay objection and directed the matter to proceed on the merits.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied for certification.

The Board had to determine whether the Home Care Administrator and the Family Planning Co-ordinator should be included in the bargaining unit or excluded under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act for exercising managerial functions.

The Board found that the Home Care Administrator exercised significant managerial authority, including budgetary control and hiring of therapists, and was therefore excluded.

Conversely, the Family Planning Co-ordinator's role relied on professional knowledge rather than managerial authority, and she was included in the bargaining unit.