Corinne F. Murray

The complainant requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision that found the union breached its duty of fair representation.

The complainant sought costs, an order that the Board arbitrate the grievance itself or direct it to arbitration, the right to retain independent counsel at the union's expense, and for the Board to remain seized of the matter.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no extraordinary circumstances to award costs, noting the union membership had already voted to refer the grievance to arbitration, and finding no basis to assume the union would not properly represent the complainant at arbitration.

The complainant, an employee at a meat processing plant, refused to hold a hog carcass while another employee operated a newly installed circular saw, citing safety concerns.

The complainant was subsequently given the choice to do the work or leave, which the Board found amounted to a discharge.

The Board held that the complainant had a reasonable belief that the work was unsafe and had adequately communicated this to his supervisor.

The Board concluded that the employer violated section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by discharging the complainant for exercising his right to refuse unsafe work, and ordered compensation.

The complainant, a doorman, was terminated by the respondent hotel following an altercation with a guest.

The respondent union investigated the grievance but ultimately decided not to proceed to arbitration, citing the complainant's disciplinary record and the merits of the case.

The complainant alleged the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union acted arbitrarily by failing to properly notify the complainant of the times and places of the Executive and membership meetings where his grievance was considered, depriving him of his right to present his case.

The Board ordered the union to provide the complainant an opportunity to attend and present his case at both meetings.

The applicant union sought declarations that Tanner Industries was a successor and related employer to Do-Tan Manufacturing Limited under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

Do-Tan had ceased operations and its assets were sold off.

J.R. Tanner, a former principal of Do-Tan, secured customer commitments and transferred equipment to a new company, Tanner Industries, owned by his family.

The Board found that a definable part of Do-Tan's business, including equipment, know-how, and customer contacts, was transferred to Tanner Industries.

The Board declared Tanner Industries a successor employer bound by the collective agreement, but declined to exercise its discretion to make a related employer declaration.

The applicant union brought applications under sections 1(4) and 63 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging a sale of a business and/or related employer status between Harley Transport Limited, Bryan Cathcart, and Ottor Forwarders Ltd. Harley Transport had previously serviced Ottor's trucking routes but subsequently arranged for the work to be performed by Bryan Cathcart, the son of Harley Transport's president, using leased equipment.

The Board dismissed the applications with respect to Ottor Forwarders, finding no related employer status or sale of a business.

However, the Board found that Harley Transport and Bryan Cathcart were related employers under common control and direction, and that a sale of part of a business had occurred.

The Board exercised its discretion to declare them related employers bound by the collective agreement to protect the union's bargaining rights.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a group of employees of the respondent freight forwarding company.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that its operations fell under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867, because it operated an international distribution network extending beyond the province, or alternatively, was an integral part of such an undertaking.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the objection, finding that the respondent's business was entirely contractual and it did not own or operate the physical carriage equipment crossing provincial or national boundaries.

The Board concluded that the respondent was not a federal undertaking nor integral to one, and therefore its labour relations remained subject to provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application for certification prior to a meeting with a Labour Relations Officer, having realized it lacked the requisite 35% membership support for a pre-hearing representation vote.

The respondent employer objected to the withdrawal and requested the dismissal of the application with a 10-month bar on future applications.

The Board noted that this was the third unsuccessful application within six months, which had kept the employer bound by statutory freeze provisions and caused unrest among employees.

The Board exercised its discretion to impose a 4-month bar on subsequent applications.

The applicants, four fire alarm technicians, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union raised a jurisdictional challenge, arguing the applicants were 'full-time fire fighters' under the Fire Departments Act and thus excluded from the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the three full-time technicians performed duties integral to fire protection and fell within the statutory definition of full-time fire fighters, excluding them from the Act.

However, the Board held that the single part-time technician was not excluded and allowed the termination application to proceed with respect to her alone.

The complainant, a part-time dockhand, alleged that the union and employer breached sections 66(b) and 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

He claimed the union failed to represent him fairly by not consulting part-time employees during bargaining, not negotiating just cause protections for them, and refusing to file a grievance when he was removed from the part-time list.

The Board found that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 by failing to consult part-time employees prior to or during collective bargaining.

However, the Board dismissed the allegations regarding the failure to negotiate just cause protections and the refusal to file a grievance, finding the union correctly interpreted the collective agreement as not providing substantive discharge protections for part-time employees.

The section 66(b) complaint was also dismissed.

The complainant filed a section 68 complaint against the union regarding its decision not to take his discharge grievance to arbitration.

The union and the employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint due to a nine-month delay in filing.

The Board dismissed the preliminary motion, finding that the delay was not extreme enough to cause severe prejudice to the respondents' ability to mount a defence or to their collective bargaining relationship.

The matter was directed to be relisted for a hearing on the merits.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act and subsequently sought to add related employer and sale of business applications under sections 1(4) and 63 by way of letter.

The respondents did not attend the hearing.

The Board adjourned the section 1(4) and section 63 applications, finding that the applicant's failure to file the proper forms meant that the required formal notices had not been given to the respondents or their employees.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent taxi company breached sections 15 and 43 of the Labour Relations Act during negotiations for a second collective agreement.

The respondent took the position that the owner-operators and drivers in the bargaining unit were not 'employees', despite a prior Board certificate and collective agreement recognizing them as such.

The respondent also refused the union's demand for a mandatory dues check-off provision under section 43, arguing that the dependent contractors did not receive 'wages' from which dues could be deducted.

The Board held that the respondent's refusal to recognize the employees constituted bad faith bargaining under section 15.

The Board further held that section 43 applies to dependent contractors, interpreting 'wages' broadly to include the compensation or reward they receive, and ordered the respondent to cease its refusal to negotiate an appropriate check-off provision.

The Canadian Paperworkers Union applied for certification to represent employees at Cooper Corrugated Containers Ltd. A group of employees filed a petition opposing the certification.

The Board held a hearing to determine the voluntariness of the petition.

The Board found the testimony of the petition's originator lacked credibility and failed to establish that the petition was a voluntary expression of the employees' true wishes.

Consequently, the Board declined to order a representation vote and granted interim certification to the union.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit consisting solely of employees in the respondent's Social Services Department.

The respondent opposed the application, arguing that a departmental unit would unduly fragment the workforce, which consisted of multiple departments.

The Board found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for a departmental bargaining unit and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging he was discharged for refusing unsafe work under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

He experienced allergic reactions when using a grinder.

The Board dismissed the complaint on a preliminary basis, finding the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case.

The work place did not present a general hazard, the applicant's reaction was exceptional, and he failed to pursue his request for a face mask before his termination.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement by employing non-members on a construction project.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing the matter was res judicata based on a prior Board decision that found the union was estopped from enforcing the agreement on projects bid prior to a certain date.

The union argued the estoppel was removed because it offered to supply members at a lower wage rate, eliminating the employer's detrimental reliance.

The Board held that the grievance involved the same issue decided in the prior proceeding and that the union's attempt to waive the collective agreement wage rates would constitute an arrangement contrary to section 146 of the Act.

The Board declined to arbitrate the grievance.

The applicant union applied under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of the predecessor trade union, the Jaeger Employees' Union.

An employee objected, arguing he misunderstood the effect of a motion to amend the union's constitution, and the employer requested a representation vote.

The Board found that the predecessor union's constitutional procedures for merger were properly followed and that there was no evidence of widespread misunderstanding or interference with the members' true wishes.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and granted the requested declaration.

The complainants, employees at the respondent's plant, refused to work due to the smell of gasoline fumes.

The respondent sent the refusing employees home without pay pending a Ministry of Labour investigation.

One complainant, Arnold, alleged he was intimidated by his foreman who repeatedly ordered him back to work and threatened to stop his pay.

The Board found that the respondent violated section 24(1)(d) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by intimidating Arnold, as the foreman's actions negated his statutory right to refuse unsafe work.

However, the Board dismissed the complaint regarding the loss of pay for the other refusers, finding that sending them home was a practical response to a lack of work and not a penalty under section 24(1)(c).

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit consisting of 9 maintenance department employees at the respondent hospital.

The Board considered whether to depart from its normal policy against departmental certification in favour of a larger service employee unit.

Finding no reason to deviate from its policy against unnecessary fragmentation of the workplace, the Board determined that the broader service unit was appropriate.

As the applicant agreed its application would fail if the broader unit was deemed appropriate, the application was dismissed.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to provide him with a lawyer at his arbitration hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, holding that a union official representing a grievor need not be a lawyer.

The Board found that the complainant failed to establish that the union official made any reckless, flagrant, or capricious mistake, or failed to give proper attention to the case.