Corinne F. Murray

The complainant applied for a resolution of a dispute over the implementation of a previous Board order that directed the union to submit his discharge to arbitration.

The complainant sought to be represented by a lawyer of his own choosing at the union's expense, rather than by the union's representative.

The Board held that this request did not raise a matter of implementation, but rather sought a remedy that had already been refused in the original hearing.

The Board further held that even if treated as an application for reconsideration, it would be denied as there was no evidence that the union representative would fail to fulfill his duty of fair representation at the arbitration.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss a duty of fair representation complaint on the grounds of delay, failure to disclose a prima facie case, and insufficient particulars.

The Board found that the eight-month delay was not 'extreme' enough to warrant outright dismissal without hearing the merits, though the issue of unreasonable delay affecting the remedy remained open.

The Board also held that the complaint disclosed a prima facie case, as the allegations of arbitrary and discriminatory conduct could theoretically support a breach of section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

However, the Board agreed that the complaint lacked sufficient particulars and ordered the complainants to provide further details before the matter proceeded to a hearing on the merits.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

At the hearing, the respondent failed to produce subpoenaed documents, forcing an adjournment.

The applicant requested that the Board assess 'costs of the day' against the respondent.

The Board reviewed its jurisprudence and concluded that it lacks the statutory authority to award costs as a punitive measure in section 124 proceedings, noting that costs are generally not awarded in arbitration unless explicitly provided for.

The request for costs was denied.

The applicants applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union argued that the petition circulated by the applicants was invalid because it lacked a heading indicating its purpose at the time it was signed.

The Board found that because the applicants showed each signatory a blank Form 17 (Application for Declaration Terminating Bargaining Rights) before they signed, the employees knew the purpose of the petition.

The Board accepted the petition as voluntary signification in writing and ordered a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, arguing the petition did not meet the strict requirements of Rule 73.

The complainant, a probationary employee, was discharged by his employer.

He alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to represent him or file a grievance on his behalf.

The union argued that under the collective agreement, it was not required to represent probationary employees in cases of discharge.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union acted arbitrarily by relying on a collective agreement provision to completely abdicate its duty to represent the complainant simply because he was a probationary employee.

The Board ordered the union to submit the discharge to arbitration and ordered the employer to waive any timeliness objections.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of production employees.

The issue was whether a numerical control programmer shared a community of interest with the production employees or should be excluded as office/technical staff.

The Board applied the Usarco criteria, focusing on conditions of employment, organizational structure, and functional coherence.

Finding that the programmer shared similar compensation, hours, and reporting structures with production workers, the Board concluded there was a community of interest and included the position in the bargaining unit.

The respondent employer requested that the Board extend the time for representations or hold an advance poll because an employee was on vacation during the representation vote.

The Board held that the vote should stand, noting that the employer had agreed to the vote date and failed to raise the issue promptly or on the day of the vote.

As more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant union, the Board issued a certificate.

The applicant, the son of the effective owner of the employer's business, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The sole issue was whether the petition circulated by the applicant was voluntary.

The Board found that employees could reasonably perceive the applicant as an arm of management due to his close family ties, his occasional role as acting manager, and his reliance on his father's business practices during discussions with employees.

Consequently, the Board held the petition was not voluntary and dismissed the application.

The complainant, representing a group of bartenders, alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

The complaint arose from the union's negotiation of a first collective agreement that replaced fixed day shifts with rotating shifts, and its subsequent refusal to take grievances regarding this change to arbitration.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union's bargaining proposals were based on a legitimate desire to eliminate perceived favouritism and were ratified by the majority.

Furthermore, the union's decision not to arbitrate the grievances was reasonably based on legal advice.

The complainants alleged that the respondent employer breached section 66(a) of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to return them to work following a legal strike.

The employer claimed the refusal was based on its policy not to reinstate employees charged with strike-related offences, and that the final list of non-returnees was negotiated with the union based on seniority.

The Board found no anti-union animus in the employer's general policy or its application to four of the complainants.

However, the Board concluded that the refusal to reinstate one complainant, a union steward and picket captain, was motivated by anti-union animus.

The Board ordered his reinstatement with compensation.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of a business occurred between J. B. Carroll Electric Limited and Carroll Electric (1982) Limited, or alternatively, that they were related employers.

The Board found that the core of the predecessor's business, including customers, inventory, and employees, was transferred to the newly incorporated company, which was formed by the son of the predecessor's owner partly to avoid collective bargaining obligations.

The Board declared that a sale of a business had taken place under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, binding the new company to the collective agreement.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Board decision dismissing her application under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The applicant also requested a representation vote, relying on an undated petition signed by 46 employees.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the union had majority support at the time the voluntary recognition agreement was entered into.

The Board held that a representation vote under section 60(2) can only be ordered where there is uncertainty as to the union's entitlement to represent the employees at the time the agreement was made, which was not the case here.

The applicant union sought to set aside a representation vote, alleging that the intervener union made misleading statements to employees regarding the potential loss of jobs and changes to the bargaining unit scope if the applicant were certified.

The Board found that the statements made by the intervener's president were within the permissible bounds of electioneering and did not amount to campaign trickery that would impair the employees' ability to express their true wishes.

The application for certification was dismissed as the applicant did not receive majority support.

The applicants applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights for a full-time employee unit.

The union argued the appropriate unit included part-time employees and students, relying on a single document containing terms for both groups.

The Board found the document constituted two separate collective agreements and the full-time unit was appropriate.

The Board also denied the applicants' request to call all petition signatories to testify, citing the need to protect the secrecy of union membership under section 111(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent union was not entitled to represent the employees at the time a voluntary recognition agreement was entered into with the intervener employer.

The applicant conceded that the union had majority support but requested the Board exercise its discretion under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act to order a representation vote.

The Board declined to order a vote, finding no evidence to justify upsetting the settlement between the union and employer.

The Board also declined the union's request for an order confirming its representative status, noting this would inappropriately grant it certified status.

The application was dismissed.