D. G. Wozniak

Following a Board decision combining two bargaining units, the parties were unable to agree on the wage rates for three service technicians located in northern Ontario.

The union argued that the existing collective agreement's wage rates should automatically apply, while the employer proposed lower regional rates due to market conditions and higher operating costs in the north.

The Board declined to automatically extend the existing collective agreement, emphasizing the importance of collective bargaining.

Acting to complete the negotiation process, the Board directed a 4% wage increase for 1993 and an additional 4% for 1994, finding a middle ground between the parties' positions.

The applicant, a probationary employee, alleged he was terminated as a reprisal for complaining about the availability of protective gloves and/or because he developed dermatitis from handling oiled parts.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the employer discharged the applicant due to poor performance, erratic productivity, and poor attitude, rather than any health and safety animus.

The Board noted the applicant had not made any formal health and safety complaints prior to his termination and the employer had accommodated his request for gloves.

The union applied to combine a newly certified bargaining unit of three service technicians in northern Ontario with an existing bargaining unit of service technicians based in Richmond Hill.

The employer opposed the combination, arguing a lack of community of interest and expressing concern that it would lose the opportunity to negotiate terms for the northern employees, who faced different economic realities.

The Board found that the employees shared a community of interest as they performed identical work and reported to the same manager.

The Board ordered the combination of the bargaining units to facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining and reduce fragmentation.

However, the Board declined to order that the existing collective agreement automatically apply to the northern employees, instead referring the matter back to the parties to negotiate the terms for the newly added employees.

The union brought applications alleging that Specialized Packaging Products Ltd. was a successor employer to Paperboard Industries Corporation following the purchase of a corrugator machine and the assignment of a lease for a plant in Holland Landing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the transactions, which included the acquisition of the essential production equipment, the premises, and the hiring of the former plant manager and employees, constituted a sale of part of Paperboard's business under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board declared that Moore Packaging Corporation, into which Specialized had merged, was bound by the collective agreement between the union and Paperboard.

The applicant union sought certification for a unit of construction operators and drivers.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing the union, which, if voluntary, would normally prompt a representation vote.

The Board found that the employee who circulated the petition had recently been promoted to a 'working foreman' position, complete with a white hard hat and a company truck.

Because he circulated the petition while exercising these new managerial trappings and in the presence of actual management, the Board concluded that employees would reasonably perceive him as acting on behalf of the employer.

The petition was therefore given no weight, and the union was certified without a vote.

The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto purchased Carefree Lodge, a home for the aged, from the CR Vint Foundation.

Following the purchase, Metro integrated the facility into its existing network of homes and intermingled the former Vint employees with its own employees.

A conflict arose between the Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA), which represented a small unit of nurses at the predecessor facility, and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), which represented all Metro employees, including nurses, under a broader collective agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that an intermingling of employees had occurred under section 63(6) of the Labour Relations Act.

To avoid undue fragmentation and promote rational collective bargaining, the Board terminated ONA's bargaining rights and declared that the nurses at Carefree Lodge would be covered by the CUPE all-employee collective agreement.

ONA's related unfair labour practice complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union sought certification and won a representation vote.

The respondent employer and a group of objecting employees alleged that the union engaged in intimidation and coercion during the vote, including holding a meeting at a Sikh Temple, making religious appeals, and congregating outside the polling area.

The Board found that while union supporters did congregate and electioneer outside the voting area, the evidence did not establish that their conduct was intimidatory, coercive, or destructive of the employees' freedom of choice.

The Board declined to set aside the vote and ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

During a union certification proceeding, the respondent employer sought consent under Rule 72(4) of the Board's Rules of Procedure to adduce evidence of alleged intimidation by a union organizer.

The alleged incidents occurred prior to a representation vote but were not raised by the respondent within the time limits prescribed by the Board's rules.

The Board denied the request, emphasizing the need for expedition in labour relations matters and finding that the respondent had not acted with due diligence in raising the allegations.

The union filed an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer terminated two employees for their union organizing activities.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proof under section 89(5) of the Labour Relations Act, concluding that the terminations were tainted by anti-union animus in violation of sections 64 and 66.

Given the chilling effect of discharging union organizers, the Board determined that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained through a representation vote.

Consequently, the Board certified the union under section 8 of the Act and ordered the reinstatement and compensation of the terminated employees.

The applicants sought to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union under section 57 of the Labour Relations Act.

They filed petitions signed by employees in support of the application.

The Board found that the primary applicant who circulated the petitions had a close working and familial relationship with a management supervisor, which was well known to the bargaining unit employees.

The Board concluded that reasonable employees would likely have a concern that management would become aware of who did or did not sign the petition.

Consequently, the Board could not be satisfied that the petitions represented a voluntary expression of employee wishes and dismissed the application, with one member dissenting.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the City of Etobicoke and the Etobicoke Public Library Board were related employers under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively that a sale of a business had occurred under section 63.

The union abandoned the section 63 claim.

The application arose after the Library Board contracted for the construction of a new library using non-union labour, while the City was bound by a collective agreement with the union.

The Board assumed without finding that the preconditions for a section 1(4) declaration were met, but declined to exercise its discretion to make the declaration.

The Board found that the City's involvement in the library construction was limited to its statutory financial obligations and did not constitute an attempt to avoid bargaining rights or interfere with the Library Board's labour relations.

The application was dismissed.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer breached the statutory freeze provisions and other sections of the Labour Relations Act by failing to implement an annual wage increase during a certification drive.

The union also sought certification without a vote under section 8.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer's historical pattern of wage increases was tied to a provincial pattern that had not yet been completed at the time of the complaint.

The Board found no anti-union animus or intimidatory conduct by the employer.

As no violation of the Act was established, the request for certification without a vote was denied, and the ballots from a previously ordered representation vote were directed to be counted.

In an ongoing application for certification, the applicant union requested a reconvened hearing on the voluntariness of an employee petition, claiming it did not receive notice of the original hearing due to a strike at its office.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed its jurisprudence on notice and reconsideration, finding that delivery of the notice to the union's address for service constituted receipt under section 113(1) of the Act.

The Board held that the union's failure to read the notice was not beyond its control, as it could have picked up the mail or advised the Board of a change of address.

The request to reopen the decision was denied, and the ballots from the representation vote were ordered to be counted.

The applicant union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

During the hearing, the Board ruled that evidence of discussions with a mediator and a Board Officer was inadmissible due to statutory confidentiality and settlement privilege.

The union subsequently asserted that a settlement had been reached, causing the respondent's counsel to become a potential witness.

The respondent requested an adjournment to retain new counsel.

The Board granted the adjournment, holding that the 30-day time limit in section 40a(2) of the Labour Relations Act is directory rather than mandatory, and that natural justice required the adjournment.

A dissenting Board member argued the time limits should be considered mandatory.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's Kingston plant, arguing that two service mechanics based in Belleville should be excluded due to geographic separation.

The respondent employer argued that its operation was integrated and the Belleville employees should be included.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the Usarco criteria for community of interest and found that the operation was indeed integrated, with significant overlap of work and centralized administration in Kingston.

The Board concluded that a unit excluding the Belleville servicemen would not be appropriate and ordered a representation vote for an inclusive bargaining unit covering both Kingston and Belleville.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by terminating two employees, holding a captive audience meeting, questioning employees about union membership, and assaulting a union official on the picket line.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the terminations, the meeting, and the questioning were motivated by anti-union animus and constituted unlawful interference and discrimination.

The Board dismissed the allegation regarding the picket line assault, finding it was a personal altercation rather than intimidation under the Act.

The employer was ordered to reinstate the terminated employees with compensation and post a notice of the violations.

The complainants, three employees at a gypsum mine, refused to work after discovering that the mine's fire alarm system did not function during power failures, which were frequent.

The employer implemented a temporary contingency plan, but the complainants felt it was inadequate and continued to refuse work, leading to their suspension.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the complainants had reasonable grounds to believe the workplace was unsafe and that the employer violated section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by disciplining them.

The Board ordered the employer to compensate the complainants for all losses suffered as a result of the suspensions.

The complainant union alleged that the employer committed unfair labour practices, breached the statutory freeze, and failed to bargain in good faith when it laid off all registered nurses at its London retirement lodge shortly after concluding first collective agreements.

The employer maintained the layoffs were part of a broader, division-wide reorganization prompted by financial concerns and a shift to a 'wellness concept' for residents.

The Board found no anti-union animus or unlawful lockout, accepting that the decision was driven by legitimate business reasons.

The Board also concluded that the reorganization decision was finalized after the collective agreements had been ratified, meaning the statutory freeze and the duty to bargain in good faith had already expired.

The complaint was dismissed.

The Globe and Mail decided to contract out its Ontario highway delivery runs and lay off its drivers to save costs.

The union alleged that the contracting out to independent carriers constituted a sale of a business or that the entities were related employers under the Labour Relations Act.

The union also alleged unfair labour practices when the Globe refused to award delivery contracts to four laid-off employees after the union indicated it might assert they remained employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the applications, finding no sale of a business or related employer relationship, as the Globe merely transferred a like function to independent contractors.

The Board declined to grant remedial relief for the alleged unfair labour practices, noting the Globe's actions were a response to the union's late assertion of rights that would have undermined the legitimate business decision to contract out.

The complainant, a part-time employee, was discharged after refusing to clean an employee washroom, claiming the smell would make him sick.

A grievance was filed and subsequently settled, with the complainant reinstated with seniority but without compensation.

Two months later, the complainant filed a complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) seeking lost earnings.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the OHSA complaint, finding that under section 24(2) of the OHSA, a worker must elect to proceed either before the Board or under the collective agreement.

Having elected to utilize the grievance procedure and having consented to a settlement, the complainant could not relitigate the propriety of his discharge before the Board.