D. Patterson

The responding party brought a non-suit motion.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the responding party to elect whether or not it will call evidence before the Board proceeds to consider the non-suit motion.

The responding party was given 10 days to advise the Board and the applicant of its decision.

The employer filed a complaint alleging that the union engaged in an unlawful strike by failing to sign a collective agreement after employees allegedly voted to accept the employer's final offer under section 40 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union challenged the Board's jurisdiction to determine voter eligibility for the section 40 vote, arguing only the Minister could do so.

The Board ruled that it has the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints under the Act and therefore has the authority to determine voter eligibility questions arising from a section 40 vote in order to dispose of the unlawful strike complaint.

The respondent union complained by letter about the conduct of a Labour Relations Officer designated to conduct an inquiry and requested directions from the Board.

The Board declined to intervene, noting that Practice Note No. 4 establishes the procedure for such inquiries and that an Officer has discretion within those parameters.

The Board held that it would be inappropriate to intervene in the midst of the inquiry, as the proper time to rule on such objections is after receiving the Officer's report and the parties' submissions on it.

The union's requests were denied without prejudice to its right to raise the objections at the proper time.

The applicant union filed a second application for certification after withdrawing its first application due to employer allegations of non-pay and misconduct regarding membership evidence.

The employer argued the fresh membership evidence in the second application was tainted by the alleged prior misconduct and sought dismissal or a representation vote.

The Board found no evidence of impropriety in the collection of the fresh cards and held that the withdrawal of the first application did not preclude the union from relying on new, untainted evidence.

The Board certified the union, finding it had the requisite support of more than fifty-five percent of the employees.

The complainant filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the Hospital, VS Services Ltd., and the Union.

The Board entertained several preliminary motions.

The complaint against the Hospital was dismissed on consent, as it was never the complainant's employer.

The Board struck the complainant's late-filed particulars for failing to comply with a prior Board direction.

The Board also dismissed allegations relating to sections 63, 91(18), and 95 of the Labour Relations Act, as they were inapplicable.

However, the Board refused to dismiss the entire complaint against VS Services Ltd., allowing the allegations under sections 66(c), 67, and 68 to proceed.

The union applied for certification.

The employer and objecting employees alleged misconduct in the collection of membership evidence, including non-payment of the required $1 fee by one employee and misrepresentations by union organizers.

The Board found that one employee did not pay the fee and rejected his card, and gave no weight to cards collected by one organizer due to his misconduct and lack of credibility.

However, the remaining valid cards left the union in a vote position.

The Board dismissed the union's request for automatic certification under section 8, finding the employer's intemperate comments did not prevent the ascertainment of employees' true wishes.

A representation vote was ordered.

The applicant union applied under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

The respondent employer failed to file a reply and did not attend the hearing.

The Board found that the employer had refused to recognize the union's bargaining authority and failed to make reasonable efforts to conclude a collective agreement, as evidenced by the employer's explicit refusal to negotiate and failure to attend conciliation.

The Board directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The union referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, challenging the discharge of a boilermaker.

The grievor was discharged after leaving the construction site during his shift without obtaining permission or providing a reason to his foreman.

The employer argued that the grievor's conduct warranted discharge, especially given previous warnings about attendance.

The Board found that while the grievor's conduct warranted some discipline, discharge was too severe a penalty given his length of service and the foreman's failure to object when the grievor announced his departure.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 44(9) of the Act to substitute a five-day suspension for the discharge and ordered compensation for lost wages.

A dissenting Board member would have upheld the discharge.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer failed to apply a 'time and one-seventh' shift differential when calculating pension, welfare, and union dues contributions for second-shift workers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the shift differential applied to all 'per hour paid' benefits, not just base wages.

Although the Board found it had jurisdiction to remedy breaches under prior expired agreements, it limited the retroactive remedy to the current and most recently expired collective agreements.

The Board reasoned that the union's failure to verify the calculations or raise the issue for over eight years demonstrated an indifference that made full retroactive recovery inequitable.

The complainants filed a work assignment complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the installation of metal stamping presses.

At the hearing, the complainants amended their request, seeking only a declaration for educational purposes rather than an assignment of the work.

The Board exercised its discretion under subsection 91(1) not to inquire into the complaint, finding that a purely academic declaration would serve no labour relations purpose.

The complaint was dismissed.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer.

During the organizing campaign, the employer engaged in anti-union communications, laid off union supporters, and assisted in forming an employee association.

The Board found that the employer's actions violated sections 64, 66, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also determined that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained due to the employer's conduct.

Consequently, the Board granted certification under section 8 of the Act and ordered the employer to reinstate the laid-off employees with compensation.

Six employees applied under section 47 of the Labour Relations Act for an exemption from paying union dues on the basis of their religious convictions.

Three applications were dismissed without a hearing or for non-appearance.

The remaining three applicants, who were born-again Christians, testified that their religious beliefs prevented them from supporting a union.

The Board found that while the applicants were sincerely religious, their opposition to unions was primarily based on secular, social, and economic views rather than their religious beliefs.

The Board concluded that the applicants failed to establish a causal connection between their religious beliefs and their objection to paying dues.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant union sought to certify a bargaining unit of occasional teachers employed by the respondent in its elementary panel.

The respondent argued for a composite unit including both elementary and secondary occasional teachers.

The Board found that a unit limited to the elementary panel was appropriate, mirroring the historical dichotomy in teacher collective bargaining.

The Board further held that occasional teachers on the secondary panel who occasionally worked in primary schools were not employees in the bargaining unit for the purposes of the certification application.

The applicant employee association applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent.

The Board found that the applicant established its status as a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, as employees had adopted a constitution and confirmed their membership at a founding meeting.

However, the application for certification was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient valid membership support by the terminal date.

Most membership cards were signed before the union came into existence, and the confirmatory documents were signed and filed after the terminal date.

The Board declined to extend the terminal date to cure the defective membership evidence.

The complainant union filed a section 89 complaint alleging that the employer's persistent failure to adhere to collective agreement restrictions on foremen performing bargaining unit work amounted to a violation of section 50 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer argued the issue was one of contract interpretation and requested deferral to arbitration.

The Board found that there was no broad repudiation of the collective agreement or the bargaining agent, and the issue was classically one for an arbitrator to decide based on the specific exceptions in the collective agreement.

The Board deferred the matter to arbitration and adjourned the complaint sine die for a period of one year.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent.

An intervening union opposed the application, alleging that the membership evidence was obtained with employer support.

The Board heard uncontradicted evidence that a principal of the respondent employer urged an employee to sign a union card for the applicant.

The Board concluded that the membership evidence did not express an independent voluntary decision and rejected it.

The application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant union filed four applications for certification.

A threshold issue was whether the applicant was a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1)(p) of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondents argued that the applicant was not a trade union because its constitution allowed vessel owners (alleged to be management) to join, and because some members were not employees.

The Board rejected these arguments, holding that the phrase 'organization of employees' does not mean 'organization of employees only', and that the presence of managerial members does not automatically preclude trade union status.

The Board found that the applicant had followed the necessary steps to form a trade union and declared it to be a trade union under the Act.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to provide a physical copy of the Master Plan detailing welfare benefits under the collective agreement.

The employer argued that providing access to the document at its head office and answering questions by phone was sufficient.

The Board held that the refusal to provide a copy interfered with the union's ability to represent its members and fulfill its duty of fair representation under section 68.

The Board also declined to defer the matter to arbitration, noting that the complaint raised a novel issue regarding statutory rights under section 64.

The employer was directed to provide the union with a copy of the Master Plan.