Christopher Albertyn

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

Intervenors, representing a group of faculty members, requested a postponement of the vote, arguing that as university academics they required more time for full and frank discussion of the issues.

The Board dismissed the request, holding that academic staff should not be treated differently from other employees and that prompt representation votes serve the compelling labour relations purpose of minimizing improper interference.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent the ground staff at the responding party's golf and country club.

The responding party argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should include both the ground staff and the clubhouse staff.

The Board found that the ground staff shared a distinct community of interest, separate from the clubhouse staff, due to differences in work locations, hours, supervision, and budgets.

Applying the test from The Hospital for Sick Children, the Board concluded that the ground staff constituted a viable bargaining unit and that their certification would not cause serious labour relations problems.

The application for certification was granted for the ground staff unit.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

A group of employees objected, raising several preliminary issues including the scheduling of expedited hearings, venue, notice to another union, the validity of membership cards, the adequacy of the Form A-4 declaration, the involvement of a perceived manager in organizing, and the relevance of a prior anti-union petition.

The Board dismissed all objections, finding that the union's membership evidence was valid, unambiguous, and superseded the prior petition.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and granted certification.

The applicant, a security guard, refused to work her night shift at an old post office, citing fears for her safety due to isolation, cold, lack of water, and potential intruders.

The responding party employer dismissed her for refusing the assignment.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant had a bona fide belief that the workplace was likely to endanger her, satisfying the subjective test under section 43 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The employer failed to properly investigate her concerns with her participation as required by the Act.

The Board concluded the dismissal was a reprisal in violation of section 50(1) and ordered reinstatement with compensation.

The applicants, members of the responding party union, brought an application alleging that the union violated the Labour Relations Act by concluding local collective agreements at variance with the provincial agreement.

The union had obtained a mandate from its members to offer contractors a concession to work at 85% of the provincial wage rate to combat non-union competition.

The Employer Bargaining Agency and the Ontario Provincial Council subsequently authorized this variation retroactively.

The Board found that the applicants had standing, but dismissed the application, holding that the provincial bargaining agencies were empowered to amend the provincial agreement and that such amendments could legitimately be made retroactive.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant raised four specific incidents, including the union's response to a racist note left in his desk, its handling of a production crew meeting where complaints were made about his work, its representation during a counseling meeting with management, and its pursuit of a written apology from a supervisor.

The Board found that the union acted with due diligence in all instances, taking strong action against workplace harassment and properly handling the applicant's grievances.

The application was dismissed.