C. McDonald

The applicants filed an unfair labour practice complaint against their union, alleging numerous violations of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, including breaches of the duty of fair referral and the duty of fair representation, as well as intimidation and coercion.

In an earlier decision, the Board found that the union's hiring hall system violated section 75 of the Act.

In this phase, the Board dismissed most of the applicants' other allegations, finding that the union's decision not to advance certain grievances and its application of election eligibility rules were not unlawful.

However, the Board found that threats made by union officials against the applicants for seeking financial information and filing the Board complaint violated section 87(2).

The Board awarded damages to the applicants for the unlawful operation of the hiring hall, calculating the amounts based on the average earnings of union members, but applying percentage reductions to account for the applicants' individual propensities to refuse work referrals and periods of ineligibility.

The applicant union (OPSEU) filed a work assignment dispute under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, challenging the Hospital's decision to reassign respiratory and cardiac testing work from Cardio-Pulmonary Technicians to Registered Nurses and SEIU members.

The Hospital argued the transfer to a 'point of care' model would improve efficiency and patient care.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the Hospital's decision was made for bona fide operational reasons and that the OPSEU collective agreement did not expressly prohibit the transfer of work out of the bargaining unit.

The applicant union sought a declaration under subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 that Canada Stampings & Dies Ltd. and Stamptech Ltd. are one employer.

The Board found that the two businesses were related or associated, as they served the same general market, employed the same mode of production, and were under the common control and direction of the same principal.

The Board exercised its discretion to issue the declaration, finding that the establishment of the new operation had an adverse effect on the union's existing bargaining rights by transferring work and potential growth away from the original bargaining unit.

The declaration was made retrospective to the date the union filed its grievance.

During an ongoing hearing, the responding party sought to introduce the applicant's subpoenaed medical records, which the applicant opposed on the basis of relevance.

The applicant had previously sought to rely on summary medical reports without calling the physicians to testify.

The Board held that the subpoenaed medical records were relevant since the applicant intended to rely on medical evidence.

The Board ruled that the onus of calling the physicians rested with the applicant, and if she chose not to call them but still relied on the reports, the responding party would be entitled to rely on the subpoenaed records in response.

The applicant union sought a declaration that Ferretti Forming Inc. and Fer-Pal Construction Ltd. were a single employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and relief under section 69 for a sale of a business.

The responding parties conceded the pre-conditions for section 1(4) were met but argued against the Board exercising its discretion.

The Board found that Ferretti Forming voluntarily entered into a bargaining relationship to secure union work, without intermingling of employees or diversion of work from the unionized company.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to grant the related employer declaration and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a third application for termination of bargaining rights shortly after a previous application was dismissed.

The union argued the application was untimely under the newly enacted Interim Rules of Procedure and that the Board should refuse to entertain it due to the multiplicity of applications.

The Board relieved against the strict application of the new rules, finding the application timely.

However, the Board exercised its discretion to refuse to entertain the application, balancing the employees' right to test union support against the need for stability in the collective bargaining relationship.

The Board imposed a one-year bar on further applications by the applicant.

The applicants filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.

A discrepancy arose regarding the number of employees in the bargaining unit, with the applicants claiming 54, the employer claiming 56, and the union claiming 63.

The Board directed the union to indicate whether it disputed the employer's schedule and to provide documentary evidence, and directed the employer and applicants to respond accordingly.

The Association of Law Officers of the Crown applied for certification to represent articling students employed by the Crown.

OPSEU intervened, claiming it already held bargaining rights for these students under an Order-in-Council establishing bargaining units for Crown employees.

The applicants argued that articling students fell into a residual bargaining unit and challenged OPSEU's representation.

The Board interpreted the statutory framework and Orders-in-Council, concluding that articling students were properly included in the first bargaining unit for which OPSEU was designated as the bargaining agent.

Consequently, the certification application was untimely, and the related applications to terminate bargaining rights and alleging unfair labour practices were dismissed.

The Minister referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 3(2) of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, asking whether the employer is a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Act.

The employer operates a residential facility for aged and infirm individuals, providing accommodation and care services.

The Board found that the facility provides observation, care, and treatment to residents, the majority of whom are elderly and require assistance.

The Board concluded that the employer is a 'hospital' under the Act, as the residents are dependent on the care provided and would be at risk in the event of a strike or lock-out.

The union applied for interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking the reinstatement of a key union supporter whose employment was terminated shortly after the union was certified.

The employer argued the termination was for economic reasons and that the position was no longer required.

The Board found an arguable case that the termination was related to union activities and concluded that the labour relations harm to the union outweighed the harm to the employer.

The Board ordered the interim reinstatement of the employee pending the hearing of the main unfair labour practice complaint.

The applicant union filed a complaint alleging the school board contravened the strike replacement provisions of the Labour Relations Act by planning to use regular teachers to perform the work of occasional teachers during a threatened strike.

The strike was averted when a collective agreement was reached.

The school board argued the complaint was moot and requested the Board decline to inquire into it.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, exercising its discretion under section 91 of the Act to refuse to render an advisory opinion on a hypothetical scenario where the concrete dispute had disappeared.

The Euclid-Hitachi Employees Association applied for certification to displace the incumbent CAW.

The CAW argued the application should be barred due to a recently dismissed termination application, that the Association was not a valid trade union, and that the employer had provided unlawful support to the Association.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the application was not barred because the prior termination application did not result in a vote.

The Board further found that the Association met the statutory definition of a trade union and that the evidence did not establish employer support or interference.

The Board directed that the ballots from the pre-hearing representation vote be counted.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the application on all three grounds.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer unlawfully locked out employees and violated the Labour Relations Act by suspending employees who wore T-shirts bearing a union slogan ('Solidarity Lives IBEW 636') to work.

The employer argued the T-shirts violated its dress code.

The Board found that wearing the T-shirts was a lawful union activity protected by the Act, as it did not disrupt operations or create a hazard.

The Board concluded that the employer's refusal to allow the employees to work was intended to compel them to refrain from exercising their rights, constituting an unlawful lock-out and a violation of sections 67, 71, and 73.1 of the Act.

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

Objecting employees filed a statement of desire opposing representation by a different union, which the Board gave no weight because it predated the membership cards and referred to a different organizing drive.

The employer alleged that a union organizer engaged in intimidation during a prior organizing drive, but the Board dismissed the allegations without a hearing, finding no nexus to the current application.

Satisfied that more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit had applied to become members, the Board granted the application and issued a certificate.

The United Steelworkers of America applied for certification to represent employees at Royalguard Vinyl Co. The company and an intervening employee alleged that union organizers used threats and intimidation to coerce employees into signing membership cards.

After a 40-day hearing, the Ontario Labour Relations Board (majority) found the company's witnesses lacked credibility and that the allegations of threats were unsubstantiated.

The Board applied the collateral fact rule to exclude certain cross-examination questions aimed at impeaching a union witness.

Finding the union's membership evidence reliable and demonstrating support of more than 55% of the bargaining unit, the Board certified the union without a representation vote.

One Board Member dissented, arguing that the union's witnesses lacked credibility and a representation vote should have been ordered.

In an ongoing certification application, the applicant union was certified on an interim basis pending the determination of the employee status of a Discharge Planning Co-ordinator.

Following a Board Officer's examination and the submission of written representations, the responding party employer requested an oral hearing to make further submissions.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the request, finding that the detailed written submissions were sufficient to make a full and fair determination without an oral hearing.

The applicant union filed a complaint alleging that the responding employer engaged in an unlawful lock-out by refusing to allow employees to work while wearing union T-shirts.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that wearing the T-shirts was a lawful activity protected by the Labour Relations Act.

The Board concluded that the employer's refusal to allow these employees to work constituted an unlawful lock-out and that the employer violated the Act by using the services of bargaining unit employees during the lock-out.

The Board ordered the employer to cease and desist from using such services.

The union filed an application alleging the employer violated section 41.1 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to negotiate an adjustment plan following the announcement of a major workforce reduction.

During the proceedings, the parties engaged in collective bargaining and reached a new collective agreement that addressed the rights of surplus employees.

The employer argued the application was moot.

The Board agreed, finding that the parties had practically resolved the issues by negotiating adjustment plan matters during collective bargaining.

The Board dismissed the application on the grounds of mootness and declined to grant remedial relief, noting it would serve no labour relations purpose.

The applicant trade union alleged that the employer discharged two internal union organizers during an organizing drive for reasons related to their trade union activities, in violation of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the employer's explanations for the discharges were implausible and that the decisions were tainted by anti-union animus.

The Board also found that the employer's subsequent work assignments upon the employees' interim reinstatement were discriminatory and constituted further violations of the Act.

The Board ordered the permanent reinstatement of the employees with compensation for lost wages.

The applicant union sought certification for two bargaining units of front-of-house staff at movie theatres operated by the responding party in Brampton and Scarborough.

The responding party argued for a broader geographical bargaining unit encompassing the Greater Toronto Area, mirroring the scope clause of an existing collective agreement for projectionists.

The Board found that the single-theatre and municipal units proposed by the applicant were viable and appropriate for collective bargaining, noting the obstacles to organizing on a broader basis.

The Board granted the applications and issued certificates for both bargaining units.