D. H. Blair

The applicant union sought a declaration of successor status following a purported merger with the Staff Association.

The Board found that while the Staff Association had properly amended its constitution to permit mergers, it failed to hold a separate, required vote to approve the specific merger with the applicant.

As the employees had only voted on the constitutional amendment and not the merger itself, the Board dismissed the application.

The complainant filed a reprisal complaint under section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, alleging he was dismissed for attempting to enforce the Act.

The respondent employer raised preliminary objections, including that supervisors lack status to bring such complaints and that the complainant failed to provide adequate particulars.

The Board ruled that supervisors are subsumed under the definition of 'worker' and therefore have status to bring a section 24 complaint.

However, after providing the complainant multiple opportunities to provide adequate particulars regarding his allegations, which he failed to do, the Board dismissed the complaint.

The Board heard consolidated applications for union decertification, first contract arbitration, and unfair labour practices.

The Board dismissed the decertification application, finding the petition was not a voluntary expression of employee wishes due to the lingering impact of a unilateral wage increase, employer interference, and the taint of a prior involuntary petition.

The Board granted the union's application for first contract arbitration, concluding that the employer failed to make expeditious efforts to conclude a collective agreement, largely due to a failure to read union proposals and a lack of understanding of collective bargaining obligations.

The unfair labour practice complaints were reserved.

The applicant union applied for certification of employees at seven of the respondent's bank branches in Metropolitan Toronto.

The union requested that the seven branches be consolidated into a single bargaining unit, while the employer argued that the only appropriate units were either individual branches or a single unit of all 37 branches in Metropolitan Toronto.

The Board reviewed the jurisprudence on bargaining unit appropriateness and fragmentation.

The Board concluded that the seven branches shared a sufficiently coherent community of interest to bargain together on a viable basis without causing serious labour relations problems for the employer.

The Board consolidated the seven branches into a single bargaining unit but maintained its practice of separating part-time and full-time employees.

The complainant filed an unfair labour practice complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion requesting the Board defer the matter to arbitration.

Applying the Valdi deferral doctrine, the Board found that the dispute over a payment to the intervener was essentially a contractual issue that could be resolved by an arbitrator.

The Board granted the motion and deferred the complaint to arbitration, retaining jurisdiction in the event the arbitrator failed to deal with the unfair labour practice issues.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.

On the terminal date, the respondent employer filed a list of eight employees.

Later, during the Labour Relations Officer's inquiry, the employer sought to add five additional names to the list, claiming that relevant documents had just been located.

The Board denied the request, finding that the employer had the documents in its possession at all material times and made no reservations when filing the original list.

Allowing the late amendment would render the terminal date requirements meaningless.

The Board proceeded to certify the applicant.

The applicant union sought declarations that Tanner Industries was a successor and related employer to Do-Tan Manufacturing Limited under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

Do-Tan had ceased operations and its assets were sold off.

J.R. Tanner, a former principal of Do-Tan, secured customer commitments and transferred equipment to a new company, Tanner Industries, owned by his family.

The Board found that a definable part of Do-Tan's business, including equipment, know-how, and customer contacts, was transferred to Tanner Industries.

The Board declared Tanner Industries a successor employer bound by the collective agreement, but declined to exercise its discretion to make a related employer declaration.