C. McDonald

The incumbent union and the employer filed a joint application for early termination of their collective agreement.

The intervening union, the United Steelworkers of America, objected to the application, arguing that early termination would eliminate the statutory 'open period' and prejudice its ongoing organizing campaign to displace the incumbent union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, holding that it would not grant early termination where it would abridge the two-month open period guaranteed by the Labour Relations Act and prejudice another union's right to organize.

The applicant union sought certification and filed photocopied membership evidence after the original cards were lost in the mail.

A group of objecting employees filed statements of desire but failed to attend the scheduled hearing, having mistakenly assumed their written request for a venue change would automatically adjourn the matter.

The Board declined to consider the objectors' statements due to their failure to attend despite clear notice.

The Board also accepted the photocopied membership evidence, finding that the union had made a diligent search for the lost originals and fully disclosed the circumstances.

An interim certificate was issued to the union.

The complainant, an environmental technologist, alleged he was discharged contrary to section 134b(2) of the Environmental Protection Act after cooperating with a Ministry of the Environment investigation and refusing to destroy sensitive documents.

The employer claimed he was terminated for failing to return to work from sick leave.

The Board found the employer's reasons were pretextual and that a major reason for the discharge was the complainant's compliance with the Act and provision of information to the Ministry.

The Board ruled the discharge violated the Act and held that damages would be assessed based on actual compensation rather than Employment Standards Act minimums.

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

The parties agreed on a proposed bargaining unit that differed from the incumbent union's unit by including temporary and salaried employees.

The Board established two voting constituencies—one corresponding to the incumbent's unit and another for the add-on segment—and directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be conducted in each constituency.

In an application for a declaration terminating bargaining rights, the union sought production of various employer documents via a summons duces tecum.

The Board initially denied the broad request as a fishing expedition.

Subsequently, the union narrowed its request.

The Board directed the employer to produce time cards for specific dates to address allegations of management involvement in the petition's circulation, while other document requests were resolved by agreement.

The applicant union applied for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The union argued that collective bargaining was unsuccessful due to the employer's uncompromising position on benefits without reasonable justification.

The employer refused to maintain the high level of benefits previously enjoyed by the unorganized employees, proposing instead a two-tiered system where new hires would receive lower community-standard benefits.

The Board found that the employer's position was designed to send a message that unionization would cost employees their benefits, which was not a reasonable justification.

The Board directed the settlement of the first collective agreement by arbitration.

The complainant requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsider its decision dismissing a complaint under section 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board had previously dismissed the complaint on the basis that no appropriate remedy existed, even if a violation had occurred.

The complainant argued it was entitled to a decision on the merits of the alleged violation.

The Board denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the complainant failed to identify any new evidence, new submissions, or an alternative remedy that would warrant varying the original decision.

The complainant union alleged that the respondents, Chinook Chemicals Company and G. Lemaire, violated the Labour Relations Act by depriving a truck driver of employment because of his union support.

Lemaire, an owner-operator who leased his truck to Chinook, took over driving his truck full-time from the complainant's member shortly before a union ratification vote.

The Board found that Chinook did not violate the Act as it merely acquiesced to Lemaire's lawful exercise of his right to drive his own truck.

The Board further held that even if Lemaire's statements to the driver constituted intimidation under section 70, the requested remedy of reinstatement was inappropriate because Lemaire had a lawful right to resume driving his truck.

The complaint was dismissed.

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

The parties met with a Labour Relations Officer, settled all matters in dispute, and waived their right to a formal hearing.

The Board amended the applicant's name to correct a bona fide mistake and found it to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties on the appropriate bargaining unit and the filing of both membership evidence and a petition in opposition, the Board directed the taking of a representation vote.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and requested a pre-hearing vote.

The Board authorized a Labour Relations Officer (LRO) to examine the respondent employer's records.

The employer refused to provide the required employee lists or allow access to its records, arguing the application was untimely due to an existing collective agreement with an incumbent union.

The Board directed the LRO to reconvene the meeting, demand access to the records, and warn the employer that interfering with the investigation could result in contempt proceedings under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties agreed on all matters except for a petition against unionization filed by a group of employees after the terminal date.

The objectors requested an extension of the terminal date, arguing that the notice of application was posted only three days before the deadline.

The Board declined to extend the terminal date, finding that three full days was sufficient notice for employees to object.

As the union had the requisite majority membership, a certificate was issued.

During a union certification campaign, a pre-hearing representation vote was held and the ballot box was sealed due to allegations of improper campaign material distributed by the intervener union.

The applicant union alleged the material was false, misleading, and contained discriminatory caricatures, arguing for a second vote.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objections regarding timeliness and withdrawn allegations.

On the merits, the Board found the campaign material, while containing crude stereotypes, was typical campaign propaganda that would not impair the employees' freedom of choice.

The Board directed that the ballot box be opened and the vote counted.

The complainant, a prime coater operator, alleged he was suspended for exercising his right to refuse unsafe work under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The employer maintained the complainant was suspended for insubordination after refusing a direct order to clean a paint roller while the line was stopped, not for safety reasons.

The Board found the employer's witnesses more credible, concluding the complainant was ordered to do the work when the machine was down and that his refusal was not motivated by health and safety concerns.

The complaint was dismissed.

During a union certification hearing, the employer brought a motion requesting that the panel chair disqualify herself due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The motion was based on a comment the chair made regarding the authenticity of a signature on a counter-petition.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the objective test for reasonable apprehension of bias and concluded that a reasonably well-informed person would not apprehend bias, as the comment merely indicated the trend of the evidence and the chair explicitly assured counsel they would have an opportunity to challenge it.

The motion was dismissed and the hearing was ordered to continue.

The applicant union brought an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that a sale of a business occurred from Dant Industries Limited to One-Vinyl Window Mfrs.

Ltd. through a receiver, Dunwoody Limited.

Dant, a vinyl window manufacturer, went into receivership and its assets were purchased by One-Vinyl, which continued to operate from the same premises, using much of the same equipment and many former Dant employees, to produce a redesigned vinyl window.

The Board found that the transaction constituted a sale of a business within the meaning of section 63, as One-Vinyl acquired a functional economic vehicle rather than merely incidental assets, and there was no substantial change in the character of the business.

The applicant union sought leave to withdraw its application for certification after a pre-hearing representation vote had been taken but before the ballots were counted.

The respondent opposed the withdrawal.

Applying its usual practice, the Board denied leave to withdraw, dismissed the application, and imposed a six-month bar on any new application by the union for the same employees, noting that the union's apparent support was vulnerable and did not warrant a departure from the Board's established practice.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees sought to file a statement in opposition to the application.

The terminal date for filing was July 29, 1988.

An employee left the statement on a deserted desk at the Board's offices after hours on the terminal date.

The Board found that the document was not 'received' until it came into the possession of a staff member on the next business day, August 2, 1988.

As the statement was not filed by the terminal date, the Board declined to give it any weight and issued a certificate to the applicant.