D. B. Archer

The union applied for certification to represent by-law enforcement officers employed by the respondent security agency.

The respondent objected, arguing the officers were members of a police force under the Police Act and thus excluded from the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the officers were not appointed by a board of commissioners of police, were not subject to its government, and were not employed in a police force.

The Board concluded the officers were not members of a police force and granted the application for certification.

The complainants, Local 46 and the Toronto Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council, brought a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding mechanical construction work at a Town of Vaughan project.

The work had been assigned to Simcoe Mechanical Contracting Limited, whose employees were represented by the Christian Labour Association of Canada (CLAC).

The complainants argued that area practice heavily favoured Local 46.

The Board considered various criteria, including collective bargaining relationships, skill and training, economy and efficiency, employer practice, and area practice.

While area practice favoured Local 46, the Board found that the collective bargaining relationship favoured CLAC, and that the dispute was essentially representational rather than jurisdictional.

The Board directed that the work continue to be assigned to members of CLAC.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Ethyl Canada, Inc. and F.I.R.M., a mechanical contractor, constituted a single employer.

The union alleged that Ethyl was using F.I.R.M. to erode the bargaining unit's work jurisdiction over supplementary maintenance.

The Board found that while the two entities had a close relationship, F.I.R.M. was not a mere instrumentality of Ethyl, and Ethyl had a long-standing practice of subcontracting such work.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to issue a related employer declaration, noting the potential for jurisdictional disputes and the union's delay in bringing the application.

The complainant, a journeyman pipe fitter, was dismissed shortly after he refused to use electrical fusion tools that lacked a C.S.A. label and requested a safety inspector.

The employer claimed the dismissal was due to poor performance and a refusal to work as a welder's helper.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving that the dismissal was not motivated by anti-safety animus.

The Board ordered the employer to compensate the complainant for lost wages.

The applicant union filed an application under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act seeking a related employer declaration concerning Ethyl Canada, Inc. and its mechanical subcontractor, F.I.R.M. The respondents sought a preliminary ruling to dismiss the application without hearing further evidence, arguing that the application could not succeed due to F.I.R.M.'s pre-existing bargaining rights and the applicant's delay.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to dismiss the application at the preliminary stage, finding that the issues of delay and pre-existing bargaining rights go to the heart of the section 1(4) application and should be determined after the union has had an opportunity to present its full case.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer engaged in a series of anti-union actions following certification, culminating in the layoff of a bargaining unit employee and the removal of a secretary from the unit.

The Board found that the employer's conduct demonstrated a persistent pattern of anti-union animus.

The Board concluded that the layoff was motivated by anti-union animus and ordered the employee's reinstatement with back pay.

However, the Board dismissed the complaint regarding the secretary, finding her removal was motivated by genuine business considerations related to her confidential duties.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint after the employer attempted to transfer a records clerk job, held by a member of the complainant for 23 years, to a different bargaining unit represented by another union.

The Board determined that the matter was essentially a jurisdictional dispute and applied section 91 of the Labour Relations Act.

Weighing the criteria, particularly the employer's long-standing past practice and the collective bargaining relationship, the Board directed that the work continue to be assigned to the complainant's bargaining unit.

The applicant union brought an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act alleging a sale of a business from the predecessor employer to the respondent purchaser.

The predecessor owned two office buildings and employed cleaning staff represented by the union.

Prior to the sale, the predecessor contracted out the cleaning operations to a third party and later sold the buildings to the respondent, assigning the cleaning contract.

The Board found that a sale of a business occurred and that the union's bargaining rights continued to apply to the respondent.

However, the Board held that a prior memorandum of settlement was never ratified by the predecessor, meaning the respondent was not bound by any subsisting collective agreement.

The Board deferred determining the true employer status of the cleaning staff as the third-party contractor was not a party to the proceedings.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The Board considered whether the applicant, which was not included in the Minister's designation for the employee bargaining agency, could apply under section 144(5) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the applicant is an affiliated bargaining agent and must apply under section 144(1).

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed the matter to be listed for continuation of hearing to deal with an employee petition.

The hospital filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the assignment of maintenance work.

Following the conversion of its boiler-room to a newer system, the hospital no longer required licensed stationary engineers.

The International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) both claimed jurisdiction over the remaining maintenance work.

The Board found that the work no longer required the specialized skills of a stationary engineer and directed that the work be assigned exclusively to CUPE members.

The Board also amended the scope clause of the IUOE collective agreement to restrict it to activities requiring a licensed stationary engineer, effectively leaving the IUOE bargaining unit vacant.

The complainants, a group of employees, alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation under the Labour Relations Act by executing a collective agreement on terms that a narrow majority of the bargaining unit had rejected in a ratification vote.

The union had accepted the employer's final offer because it lacked the bargaining strength to negotiate better terms, the employees were unwilling to strike, and the union feared losing its bargaining rights entirely.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union's decision was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The Board held that the Act does not strictly bind a union to the results of a discretionary ratification vote, and the union reasonably weighed the collective bargaining realities in deciding to accept the mediocre agreement rather than abandon the unit.

The respondent hospital requested the Ontario Labour Relations Board to clarify whether its original 1978 certification decision extended bargaining rights to a nursing home that was not in existence at the time.

The Board declined to vary or clarify its decision, noting that the parties had subsequently entered into collective agreements that amended the bargaining units.

The Board held that differences concerning the interpretation of the recognition clauses in the collective agreements should be resolved through arbitration rather than by varying the original certificates.

The complainants in a jurisdictional dispute sought to amend their complaint by adding a request to alter the bargaining unit and by providing a more detailed description of the work in dispute.

The respondents opposed the amendments, arguing that the Board lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief and that the dispute could not be expanded beyond the original complaint.

The Board granted both motions, holding that it had jurisdiction under section 58 of its Rules of Procedure to permit the amendments and that arguments regarding the legal sustainability of the requested relief were premature at the commencement of the hearing.

The hospital applied for reconsideration of a 1978 certification decision, seeking clarification on whether the bargaining unit included employees of a nursing home that commenced operations after the certificate was issued.

The union opposed the reconsideration, arguing the dispute was essentially about the recognition clause of the subsequent collective agreements and should be resolved at arbitration.

The Board declined to reconsider its decision, finding that the parties had entered into collective agreements and the dispute over their application and interpretation was most appropriately resolved by a board of arbitration.

The complainant, an employee in the bargaining unit, alleged that the respondent union violated section 63(4) of the Labour Relations Act during a ratification vote.

The complainant argued that the absence of a voting screen and the use of a table instead of a ballot box compromised the secrecy of the ballot.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the voting procedure, which utilized trusted rank-and-file scrutineers and provided reasonable privacy, met the objective standard of secrecy required by the Act.

A reasonable employee would not have had a substantial reason to fear their ballot would not remain secret.

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

The union argued the application was untimely because it had given notice to bargain to the successor employer following the sale of the business.

The Board held that under section 55(10) of the Labour Relations Act, a notice to bargain given to a successor employer has the same effect as a certification, meaning no termination application can be made for one year.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

A dissenting member would have found the application timely.

The complainant, a union member, alleged that the respondent trade union failed to provide him with an adequate audited financial statement upon request, contrary to section 76 of the Labour Relations Act.

Specifically, the complainant sought detailed information regarding lost time wages, expenses, salaries, and entertainment.

The Board heard expert accounting evidence that the financial statement provided was adequate and conformed to professional standards.

The Board found that the union had satisfied the statutory requirements and that the complainant could seek the detailed information he desired through the union's internal procedures at monthly membership meetings.

The complaint was dismissed.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the Perley Hospital unlawfully locked out 38 employees and discharged 6 part-time employees as a reprisal for their participation in an unlawful strike.

The Hospital argued that the failure to recall the employees was due to a decision to upgrade the quality of its nursing staff by hiring more registered nurses and registered nurse's aides, and that the part-time employees were discharged according to established practice for failing to report to work.

The Board found that the Hospital's actions, while opportunistic and partly prompted by the strike, were not motivated by a desire to chill lawful union activity or freeze out the union executive.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsider its decision finding Local 700 bound by a memorandum of settlement.

The union argued there was no evidence it authorized the settlement and that negotiations must take place through counsel.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no principle requires settlement negotiations to occur through counsel.

The Board also held that neither the Ironworkers District Council nor the other locals had standing to continue the grievance referral, as only Local 700 held representational rights for the employees and its rights regarding grievances were not vested in the Council.

The applicant applied for an exemption from the union security provisions of a collective agreement on the grounds of religious conviction or belief.

The applicant was hired in 1977 and became a member of the union.

He later concluded that his association with the union was inconsistent with his religious beliefs.

The Board dismissed the application because section 39 of the Labour Relations Act only allows for an exemption during the life of the first collective agreement containing such provisions, provided the employee was employed at the time it was entered into.

The applicant did not meet these requirements.