D. A. Patterson

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed a timely petition opposing the certification, which included signatures of some employees who had previously signed union membership cards.

The Board held a hearing to determine whether the petition represented a voluntary change of heart.

The Board found that while some signatures were voluntary, others were obtained after the employer made statements implying that unionization would lead to job losses.

Consequently, the Board discounted the involuntary signatures.

Even accepting the voluntary signatures, the union retained the support of more than 55% of the bargaining unit.

The Board therefore granted certification without a representation vote.

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

A discrepancy in the applicant's name raised an issue regarding its trade union status.

At the hearing, the applicant established that it was the same organization previously found to be a trade union in an earlier Board file, satisfying the requirements of section 105 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board directed that the unsegregated ballots from the pre-hearing vote be counted and scheduled a separate hearing to address the applicant's complaint regarding alleged management misconduct during the vote.

The applicant union filed a certification application requesting a pre-hearing representation vote.

A prior certification application by the same union for the same employees was still outstanding, pending a decision on the union's request to withdraw it and the employer's request to impose a bar.

The majority of the Board held that subsection 103(3) of the Labour Relations Act does not preclude the administrative processing of a subsequent application, including the appointment of a Labour Relations Officer, before a final decision is made on the prior application.

The Board appointed an officer to confer with the parties and gather information for the pre-hearing vote.

The dissenting member would have delayed the appointment until the prior application was resolved.

The applicant union filed two applications for certification and requested pre-hearing representation votes.

The Board directed that the votes be taken.

However, because the applicant applied under a name slightly different from the name under which it had previously been found to be a trade union, the Board declined to apply the evidentiary presumption of trade union status under section 105 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board directed that the ballot boxes be sealed and the ballots not counted until the applicant proves its trade union status at a subsequent hearing.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether he had the authority to appoint a conciliation officer at the request of Local 206.

The employer argued that Local 206 had ceased to exist or was no longer a trade union due to a merger with Local 175.

The Board found that Local 206 had not surrendered its charter, continued to exist as an unincorporated association, and retained its status as a trade union under the Labour Relations Act.

Therefore, the Board advised the Minister that he had the authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of objecting employees filed petition cards expressing opposition to the union.

The union challenged the voluntariness of these petition cards, arguing they were tainted by an earlier petition circulated in circumstances that might have created a perception of management involvement.

The majority of the Board found that the employer's behaviour was restrained and there was no evidence of management involvement in the origination or circulation of the petitions.

The Board concluded the petition cards represented a voluntary expression of employee wishes and directed a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, finding the second petition tainted by the flaws of the first.

The respondent employer raised the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a defence to a grievance alleging a violation of the union security clause (article 3) of a collective agreement.

The parties agreed to have the Board determine as a preliminary issue whether the collective agreement was subject to Charter scrutiny.

The Board found that the collective agreement was negotiated by entities that are not part of government, and the negotiation of a collective agreement is a private matter not involving the exercise of government policy or function.

Consequently, the Board held that the collective agreement is not subject to the Charter and directed that the grievance be heard on its merits.

In an application for certification, a group of employees sought to raise allegations of impropriety regarding the union's collection of membership evidence.

The allegations were not filed by the terminal date as required by the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The Board found that the employees failed to comply with the rules for timely filing.

However, because the Board decided to conduct its own inquiry into a separate 'non-pay' allegation involving a membership card, a further hearing was required anyway.

Since entertaining the late allegations would not cause any significant additional delay, the Board exercised its discretion to allow the employees to introduce evidence of the alleged improprieties at the upcoming hearing.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent occasional teachers employed by the respondent school board.

The parties disputed the appropriate bargaining unit description, specifically whether occasional teachers providing French language instruction under Part XI of the Education Act should be included in the same unit as English language occasional teachers.

The respondent also challenged the union's membership evidence, which was collected by mail and verified by telephone.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board first ruled that the membership evidence was acceptable.

On the bargaining unit issue, the Board applied the community of interest test and found that the Part XI occasional teachers shared a sufficiently coherent community of interest with the other occasional teachers.

The Board concluded that an all-inclusive bargaining unit was appropriate and directed that the segregated ballots be counted.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act that a sale of a business occurred between the respondent hotel and a newly established brew pub operating within the hotel's premises.

The union argued the hotel contracted out its food and beverage operations.

The Board found that the relationship was a standard commercial landlord-tenant arrangement and that the brew pub was a separate and parallel business, not a continuation of the hotel's former operations.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant was discharged after refusing to lift a heavy hutch, citing concerns about injuring his back.

He filed a complaint alleging his discharge violated section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which prohibits reprisals for exercising rights under the Act.

The Board found that the complainant had reason to believe the work was unsafe and that the employer failed to prove the discharge was not a reprisal for his work refusal.

The Board ordered compensation for wages and benefits lost during the thirty-day period following his discharge.

The applicant union requested reconsideration of a Board decision directing a representation vote, arguing the Board erred in including two equipment mechanics in the construction industry bargaining unit.

The union submitted that the mechanics worked primarily in the shop and should be excluded based on prior Board jurisprudence.

The majority of the Board dismissed the request, affirming that under section 117(b) of the Act, mechanics who regularly perform repair work both at the construction site and in the shop are commonly associated in their work with on-site employees.

A dissenting Board member would have granted reconsideration to recognize separate units for shop mechanics and site mechanics.

The complainant union requested that the Board file its previous determination with the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Ontario, alleging that the respondent employer failed to comply with an order to reinstate and compensate a discharged union organizer.

The respondent did not reply to the allegations of non-compliance.

The Board directed that the determination be filed for enforcement, except for the unquantified compensation portion, over which the Board remained seized.

The Board also amended the respondent's name in the style of cause.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The parties disputed whether seven employees were in the bargaining unit on the application date.

Applying the Gilvesy test, the Board excluded three employees who spent the majority of their time as truck drivers and two who were not engaged in construction work on the application date.

However, the Board included two equipment mechanics who regularly performed repair work both on-site and in the shop, finding them commonly associated in their work with on-site employees under section 117(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

A representation vote was ordered.

The applicant union applied for certification and filed documentary evidence of membership on behalf of more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit.

The respondent employer and objecting employees requested that the Board exercise its discretion under section 7(2) of the Labour Relations Act to order a representation vote, citing a close margin of support, employee turnover, past unsuccessful collective bargaining, and potential peer pressure.

The Board declined to order a vote, finding that the union had established the requisite clear majority and that none of the raised concerns warranted departing from the statutory scheme of automatic certification.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The complainant, a youth services officer at a secured custody facility, refused a directive to move to another house during his shift, citing health and safety concerns for the remaining staff due to reduced staffing levels.

He was sent home without pay for the remainder of his shift and issued a letter of reprimand.

He filed a complaint alleging the employer's discipline violated section 24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the complainant's actions constituted insubordination rather than protected compliance with the Act, as section 23(1)(c) explicitly excludes correctional facility workers from the right to refuse unsafe work.

The Board also declined to substitute a different penalty under section 24(7).

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The employer objected that the application was untimely because the intervener union failed to commence bargaining within sixty days of giving notice to bargain, which the employer argued continued the collective agreement.

The Board found the notice to bargain was valid and terminated the agreement, making the application timely.

The Board also determined that a single bargaining unit encompassing both plant and office employees was appropriate given the small number of employees, departing from its normal practice of separating them.

The Board directed the counting of the segregated ballots.

The applicant, an employee in the meat department bargaining unit, applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union locals representing three bargaining units at a retail food store.

The union argued the supporting employee petitions were invalid for failing to distinguish between the specific locals, and that the applicant lacked standing to apply on behalf of units he was not a member of.

The Board rejected both arguments, finding the employees clearly intended to reject the union generally and had designated the applicant to act on their behalf.

A representation vote was ordered for all three bargaining units.

The applicant union, Local 353, sought a declaration of successor rights under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act, claiming it acquired the jurisdiction of Local 636 over the employees of the respondent employer.

The employer objected, arguing the transaction was not a transfer of jurisdiction and expressing concern about being bound by a provincial agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that a valid transfer of jurisdiction had occurred in accordance with the union's constitution, and that the employees had been adequately notified and voted in favour.

The Board granted the declaration, noting that a successor union acquires only the rights and privileges of its predecessor.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote to displace the incumbent union.

The parties agreed to two bargaining units, but one unit contained only a single employee.

The Board noted it cannot certify a unit of one employee under s. 6(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

To preserve all options for the post-vote hearing, the Board struck a single, broad voting constituency encompassing both proposed units and directed that all ballots be segregated.

The Board also dismissed the employer's preliminary objection regarding the incumbent union's failure to bargain, noting no s. 59(2) declaration had been made, and deferred a timeliness objection to the post-vote hearing.