E. C. Went

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer violated the statutory freeze period under section 70 of the Act by altering its hiring procedure.

The dispute arose when the employer's Executive Director vetoed the hiring of a contract employee for a permanent position, despite the employee being the unanimous choice of the cottage staff.

The Board found that while the cottage staff had a long-standing privilege of making hiring recommendations, ultimate decision-making authority had always rested with senior management.

The employer's decision to overrule the recommendation was within its established management rights and did not constitute a breach of the statutory freeze.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that three construction companies were carrying on associated or related activities under common control or direction and should be treated as one employer.

The Board found that the companies shared premises, expenses, and administrative services, and that one company provided extensive managerial and supervisory services to the others.

The Board inferred that the arrangement was designed to allow a non-unionized company to bid on projects outside the unionized company's geographic area after province-wide bargaining legislation was enacted.

The Board granted the declaration, finding the entities constituted one employer bound by the provincial collective agreement.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Two timely statements of desire (petitions) were filed in opposition.

The union argued the petitions were not voluntary due to comments made by a petitioner at a union meeting and a letter distributed by the employer regarding an altercation between employees.

The Board found that the petitioner was not perceived as management and his comments were personal views.

The Board also found the employer's letter to be evenhanded and not coercive.

Concluding the petitions were voluntary, the Board exercised its discretion to order a representation vote.

Board Member Fenwick dissented.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent nursing home violated the Labour Relations Act by contracting out its housekeeping and janitorial work to an independent cleaning service.

The union argued that the decision was motivated by anti-union sentiment and unlawfully relieved the employer of its obligations under the collective agreement.

The Board found that the employer's decision was made entirely for legitimate business reasons, specifically to improve cleaning quality and save costs, with no evidence of anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed, with one Board member dissenting.

In an application for certification in the construction industry, the union challenged the inclusion of five individuals on the employer's list of employees.

A labour relations officer was appointed to inquire into the dispute.

The employer failed to call a witness before the officer but sought to call the witness before the Board.

The Board, by majority, allowed the witness to testify.

Based on the evidence, the Board concluded that two of the challenged individuals were construction labourers employed on the application date, while the other three were not.

The Board deferred the determination of the identity of the true employer and the related employer application, directing the matter to be relisted for hearing.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees at the respondent's home for the aged.

A group of employees filed a petition in opposition.

The union sought certification without a vote under section 7a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the employer's unfair labour practices, including statements by the Director of Nursing and anti-union inquiries during hiring interviews, prevented the true wishes of the employees from being ascertained.

The Board found that the employer violated the Act by interrogating prospective employees about their union views, but concluded that a representation vote could still be held.

The Board ordered the employer to cease and desist from such practices, post a remedial notice, and directed that a representation vote be taken.

One Board member dissented, finding that the employer's conduct warranted automatic certification.

During a union certification representation vote, a segregated ballot was inadvertently opened, revealing an employee's choice.

The employee, who was related to management, subsequently faced pressure from the employer and requested a new vote.

The union argued that the employer's knowledge of the employee's support would impede a free second vote and requested certification under section 7a of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered a second representation vote, emphasizing the paramount importance of the secret ballot and finding that the isolated family flare-up did not justify certification without a vote.

A group of registered nursing assistants (RNAs) applied under section 95(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of their employee status.

The employer and the union had previously agreed that the RNAs were employees covered by the collective agreement.

The Board held that section 95(2) is designed to resolve disputes between the immediate parties to the bargaining relationship (the employer and the union).

It is not available to individual employees to question their status when that status is not a matter of dispute between the employer and the trade union.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed a petition objecting to the application.

The Board found that the employer had tacitly supported the petition by allowing the objecting employees to use the company lunchroom during working hours to gather signatures, and by a foreman complying with a request to leave the lunchroom while the petition was being circulated.

Concluding that the petition did not represent the true wishes of the employees due to this perceived management interference, the Board gave it no weight and ordered a certificate to issue to the applicant union.

One Board member dissented, arguing the evidence did not establish employer support.

The applicant union brought an application under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent was the successor employer of a tavern business.

The respondent had previously sold the business to a numbered company but resumed management and control after the purchaser defaulted on its payments.

The Board held that the resumption of control constituted a 'sale' within the meaning of section 55, as it fell within the broad definition of 'any other manner of disposition'.

The Board declared the respondent bound by the collective agreement.

The Board also declined to award costs against the respondent for an earlier adjournment, noting its general practice against awarding costs as a penalty.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer's foreman interfered with the union's administration by soliciting employees to revoke their union membership and dues check-off.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the foreman initiated discussions and used promises of protection to encourage revocations, which constituted a violation of section 56 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the employer to cease and desist, compensate the union for lost dues from one employee whose revocation was directly caused by the foreman, and post a notice of the decision.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employers failed to employ union members and hire through the union office.

The respondents submitted that the employer bargaining agency and the currently hired employees should receive notice of the proceedings.

The Board found that the employer bargaining agency was an interested party and that the employees were liable to be directly and adversely affected by the arbitration.

The Board directed that notice of the proceedings be given to both the employer bargaining agency and the affected employees.

The applicant union sought certification for employees at one of the respondent's two plants in Metropolitan Toronto.

Initially, the union sought a single-plant unit while the employer argued for a multi-plant unit.

After a representation vote showed strong support for the union at the larger plant, the parties reversed their positions.

The Board applied the Usarco criteria to assess the community of interest between the two plants.

Finding no functional interdependence, separate hiring and supervision, and different products, the Board concluded there was no sound reason to sweep the smaller plant's employees into the bargaining unit.

A certificate was issued for the single plant.

The applicant association applied for certification as a trade union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer had continuously interfered with the affairs of the association, including referring the association to a management consultant, discussing the legality of the association and the right to strike, and allowing organizational meetings on paid time.

Consequently, the Board held that the applicant was not a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1)(n) of the Labour Relations Act and that certification was prohibited under section 12 due to employer participation and support.

The application was dismissed.