D. A. Patterson

In a union certification application, the parties disputed whether lead hands, linemen, and senior deburrers should be excluded from the bargaining unit.

The employer failed to file particulars, so the Board proceeded based on the union's statement of facts.

The Board found that the disputed employees did not exercise managerial functions under section 1(3) of the Labour Relations Act, as their involvement in discipline and scheduling was limited and infrequent.

The Board also rejected the argument that they lacked a community of interest with the rest of the bargaining unit, noting that minor differences in working conditions do not create serious labour relations problems.

A final certificate was issued to the union.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the responding employers terminated three employees for their union activity.

The responding parties failed to file a response in accordance with the Board's Rules of Procedure and failed to comply with a prior interim reinstatement order.

The Board refused to extend the time for filing a response, deemed the facts in the application to be true, and found that the employers violated the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the immediate reinstatement of the three employees with full compensation.

The union applied for interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking the reinstatement of 23 employees laid off shortly after an application for certification was filed.

The union alleged the layoffs were motivated by anti-union animus, while the employer claimed they were due to a seasonal shortage of work.

The Board found the union established an arguable case but balanced the harm by ordering the employer to provide work equivalent to two full shifts, rather than reinstating all 23 employees, as the employer failed to explain the sudden reduction from two planned shifts to one.

The applicant union alleged that a sale of a business occurred between Kimberly Clark and Long Lake Forest Products Inc. regarding a sawmill operation that had been closed for over seven years.

The responding party argued that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights and that the transaction was merely a sale of assets, not a going concern.

The Board found that the union had not abandoned its bargaining rights, although no collective agreement was in force at the time of the sale.

The Board concluded that the transaction constituted a sale of a business under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act, as the purchaser acquired the capacity to carry on the predecessor's business, including the mill and access to wood supply.

The applicant union sought interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, requesting the interim reinstatement of a key inside union organizer who was discharged shortly after commencing organizing activities.

The employer argued the discharge was for cause, citing the employee's unauthorized removal of a confidential memo.

The Board applied its two-step test for interim relief, finding that the union had established an arguable case of an unfair labour practice.

In balancing the harm, the Board concluded that the potential chilling effect on the organizing campaign outweighed the employer's concerns about a breach of trust, particularly given the early stage of the campaign.

The Board ordered the interim reinstatement of the employee and the posting of a notice, but declined to order interim compensation.

In an ongoing application for certification, the employer requested a representation vote under section 8(3) of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the union submitted fraudulent membership cards and prevented appropriate communication with employees.

The union brought a motion to restrict the inquiry into the scope of the bargaining unit, arguing the employer was bound by an agreement from a prior certification application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the union's motion, finding no basis for res judicata or issue estoppel.

The Board also denied the employer's request for a vote, concluding that the allegations of fraud lacked particularity and that the union had achieved the requisite 55% support for automatic certification.

The Board revoked the appointment of a Labour Relations Officer and directed a hearing to resolve the remaining bargaining unit configuration issues.

The union applied for certification and filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the employer discharged a union supporter and engaged in a pervasive campaign of interference during an organizing drive.

The Board found that the discharge was motivated by a bona fide belief of theft, not anti-union animus, and that the employer's frequent written communications fell within the bounds of free speech.

However, the Board held that the employer breached the Act by prohibiting union solicitation on company property during an employee's vacation, promising to clear discipline records, removing last names from schedules, and granting an unprecedented Christmas bonus as an inducement.

The Board concluded these violations were not so serious as to prevent the ascertainment of employees' true wishes under section 8.

The applicant union sought a determination under section 73.2(12) of the Labour Relations Act regarding the employer's use of specified replacement workers during a strike at its brewery.

The employer argued that replacement workers were necessary to operate the power plant to prevent danger to life, health, or safety, and to prevent serious deterioration of equipment.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while an engineer was required to monitor the plant even if production ceased, the employer already had two managerial employees capable of safely operating the plant.

The Board concluded that the employer failed to establish that additional specified replacement workers were necessary within the meaning of section 73.2(3).

The application was granted and the employer was prohibited from using the specified replacement workers.

The applicant union sought to include Inspectors and Instructors in the bargaining unit.

The responding party employer argued they exercised managerial functions and should be excluded under section 1(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board applied the effective control test and found that Inspectors have significant disciplinary authority and Instructors have the power to effectively recommend the retention or dismissal of probationary employees.

The Board concluded that both classifications exercise managerial functions and are excluded from the bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit composed entirely of registered and graduate nursing assistants at the responding hospital.

The hospital argued that the proposed unit was inappropriate due to concerns about fragmentation and asserted that the employees should be included in a broader service or paramedical unit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the test from Hospital for Sick Children, finding that the nursing assistants shared a sufficient community of interest and that a separate unit would not cause serious labour relations problems.

The Board granted the application and directed that a certificate issue, with one Board Member dissenting on the grounds of undue fragmentation.

The applicant union sought to certify a site-specific bargaining unit of employees at one of the employer's many locations in Metropolitan Toronto.

The employer argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should encompass all of its locations across the municipality due to the integrated nature of its operations and employee interchange.

The Board found that the single-location unit proposed by the union was not appropriate for collective bargaining, consistent with its prior jurisprudence regarding multi-location service enterprises.

The application for certification was dismissed.

The union applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the employer breached the Labour Relations Act by proposing a final offer with a duration clause of less than one year from the date of the final offer vote.

The union sought an extension of the duration clause to one year from the vote date.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union failed to argue a breach of the duty to bargain in good faith under section 15, and that section 53(1) does not apply to a final offer until it is signed by the union and becomes a collective agreement.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the union's bargaining rights shortly after a previous termination application was dismissed.

The union argued that the multiple applications constituted an abuse of process that interfered with collective bargaining.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 105(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act to refuse to entertain the application, finding that the union had not been given a reasonable opportunity to pursue collective bargaining free from continuous challenges.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was barred from filing any new termination application for a period of six months.

The union applied for certification to represent security guards employed by the responding party.

The parties disagreed on the description of the bargaining unit.

The union proposed a municipality-wide unit, while the employer argued for a site-specific unit limited to the single location where it currently operated in the municipality.

The Board followed its established practice for single-location operations and determined that a municipality-wide bargaining unit was appropriate.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance and applied for declarations that the responding parties constituted one employer and that a sale of business had occurred.

The principal of the first responding party's son incorporated a new company to perform demolition work, utilizing the same business name to benefit from established goodwill, while avoiding the union.

The Board found that a sale of business had occurred through the transfer of goodwill and that the two entities constituted one employer under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board declared both entities bound by the collective agreement and jointly and severally liable for breaches related to a demolition project where non-union workers were employed.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the bargaining rights of the CAW.

The CAW moved that the Board exercise its discretion under section 105(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act to refuse to entertain the application and to impose a ten-month bar, arguing that a prior termination application had recently been dismissed and the union had not had a reasonable opportunity to bargain.

The Board found that the employees' wishes had been tested in the prior application and that the union had not had a reasonable opportunity to bargain since its dismissal.

The Board exercised its discretion to refuse to entertain the application but declined to impose a bar, noting that the applicant was not the unsuccessful applicant in the prior proceeding.

The applicant trade union applied for certification, initially characterizing the application as pertaining to the construction industry.

When it became apparent the employer was not in the construction industry, the union amended the bargaining unit description.

The employer argued the application date should be changed to the date of the amendment.

The Board rejected this argument, treating the initial characterization as a technical error and maintaining the original application date.

Finding that more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant, the Board issued a certificate.

The applicant union sought interim relief to reinstate an employee acting as an in-house organizer who was terminated during an organizing campaign.

The employer alleged the employee was terminated for providing a false alibi for a thief.

The Board granted the interim relief, ordering the organizer returned to work without compensation pending an expedited hearing on the merits.

In this concurring decision, Board Member Ronson agreed with the reinstatement, noting the minimal risk of the organizer becoming involved in theft during the short period before the hearing, while acknowledging the employer's zero-tolerance policy for theft.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer failed to bargain in good faith when its elected trustees refused to ratify a tentative collective agreement.

The employer argued that the settlement was expressly subject to ratification and that severe provincial funding cuts justified the trustees' decision to reject the settlement.

The Board found that the employer did not breach its duty to bargain in good faith, as the change in economic circumstances was real and compelling, and the employer was entitled to reconsider its bargaining position.

The complaint was dismissed, and the parties were directed to return to the bargaining table.

The applicant union sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to reinstate an employee who was allegedly discharged for his involvement in a union organizing drive.

The responding employer claimed the employee was discharged for covering up a theft.

In its first decision interpreting the new interim relief power, the Board established a test requiring an arguable case on the merits and a balancing of the harm to both parties.

Finding that the discharge of a union organizer has a severe chilling effect on an organizing campaign that cannot easily be remedied later, the Board concluded the balance of harm favoured the applicant.

The Board ordered the employee's interim reinstatement pending the final disposition of the unfair labour practice complaint, but denied the request for interim compensation.