E. G. Theobald

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 applied for an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to reinstate three employees who were allegedly discharged for their participation in a union organizing campaign, pending the resolution of the main unfair labour practice application.

The Board declined to grant the interim order, finding that the harm suffered by the employees was primarily financial and that the delay in bringing the application militated against intervention, as the employer had already hired replacements and would suffer significant harm if the order were granted.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of production employees.

The employer and a group of objecting employees challenged the reliability of the union's membership evidence, alleging misrepresentation and language barriers.

The Board dismissed these objections as insufficiently particularized or not raising matters that would invalidate the cards.

The parties disputed the inclusion of several positions in the bargaining unit.

The Board ruled that production facilitators, supervisor trainees, and engineers were included, while blenders and quality control staff were excluded as technical employees.

The Board also held that employees of a newly created division (Shrader/Malcolm) shared a sufficient community of interest with the production employees and were included in the unit.

An interim certificate was issued, with a Board Officer appointed to inquire into the remaining disputed position of office custodian.

One Board Member dissented regarding the inclusion of the Shrader/Malcolm employees.

During a hearing, the applicant union sought to cross-examine the responding party's president regarding alleged statements made to a grievor.

The responding party objected because the statements were not particularized in the application materials.

The Board sustained the objection, ruling that under Rule 12(d) of the Board's Rules of Procedure, the applicant was required to provide a detailed statement of all material facts relied upon, and failed to do so.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the court-appointed receiver and manager of a nursing home was a successor employer and bound by the collective agreement.

The receiver argued that its appointment did not constitute a disposition of the business.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the receiver had virtually complete control over the nursing home's operations and assets, which amounted to a disposition within the broad meaning of 'sale' under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board declared the receiver to be a successor employer.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer discharged an employee, Tom Robinson, for his union organizing activities, contrary to the Labour Relations Act.

The employer claimed the discharge was for cause due to absenteeism, tardiness, and a machine malfunction incident.

Applying the reverse onus under section 91(5) of the Act, the majority of the Board found that while the employee had a poor record, the employer's reasons were tainted by anti-union animus, evidenced by artificial disciplinary records and knowledge of his union activities.

The Board ordered the employee reinstated with compensation.

A dissenting board member would have dismissed the complaint, finding no anti-union motivation.

The applicant union filed applications for certification to represent taxi drivers operating under the banners of various taxicab brokers in Metropolitan Toronto.

The central issue was whether the drivers were 'dependent contractors' under section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, or independent contractors.

The Board examined the economic relationship between the drivers and the brokers, noting that the drivers derived a substantial portion of their income from dispatched fares and corporate account chits provided by the brokers.

The Board also found that the brokers exercised significant control over the drivers through rules, policies, and the threat of suspension from the dispatch system.

The Board concluded that the drivers were in a position of economic dependence and under an obligation to perform duties for the brokers, more closely resembling the relationship of an employee than that of an independent contractor.

The drivers were therefore found to be dependent contractors.

The applicant union and respondent employer were unable to resolve monetary issues for a first collective agreement and agreed to have the Ontario Labour Relations Board arbitrate the dispute under section 41(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board determined the outstanding issues, including wages, signing bonuses, banquet gratuities, and the term of the agreement.

Taking into account the recession's impact on the hotel industry and the employees' minimum wage status, the Board awarded a two-year term, a wage grid based on length of service, specific signing bonuses for full-time and part-time employees, and excluded porters from banquet gratuities.

The applicant sought to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights in the ICI sector of the construction industry.

The union argued that the applicant and other individuals supporting the application were not 'employees' in the bargaining unit because they were not members in good standing and were not hired through the union's hiring hall, in violation of the collective agreement.

The Board applied the April Waterproofing principle, finding that because the union had actively asserted its rights under the collective agreement by filing a grievance prior to the termination application, the continued employment of these individuals contravened the agreement.

Consequently, they were not considered employees in the bargaining unit for the purpose of the application, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of restaurant employees at a Cara Operations Limited location, seeking to displace the incumbent union, Local 88.

The parties agreed on all matters in dispute and waived a formal hearing.

Local 88 notified the Board that it wished to abandon its bargaining rights, leading the Board to declare that Local 88 no longer represented the employees.

Finding that the applicant is a trade union and that more than 55 percent of the employees in the agreed-upon bargaining unit were members, the Board ordered a certificate to issue to the applicant.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer frustrated the grievance and arbitration process.

Following a settlement and an arbitration award ordering the reinstatement of a discharged truck driver, the employer laid off the driver, citing insurance restrictions.

The Board found that the employer reported the driver's past accidents to its insurer specifically to generate insurance restrictions and insulate itself from the grievance process.

The Board held that this conduct demonstrated an unacceptable disregard for the grievance and arbitration procedure, violating section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by interfering with the union's administration of the collective agreement.

The union referred a grievance regarding a 5-day suspension imposed on the grievor for physically touching a manager during a meeting.

Following the incident, the grievor was terminated for absenteeism, but the parties settled the termination grievance with a reinstatement.

The employer then imposed the suspension for the earlier physical altercation.

The union argued the employer was precluded from imposing discipline after settling the termination.

The Board held that the employer was not precluded from imposing discipline for a separate incident, but found the employer's failure to disclose its intention to discipline during settlement discussions demonstrated a lack of good faith.

Considering the grievor's conduct, prior record, and the employer's bad faith, the Board substituted a written warning for the 5-day suspension.

The Board held a hearing to determine the compensation owed to the complainant following a finding that she was unlawfully discharged for a work refusal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The employer argued that compensation should be reduced due to the complainant's failure to mitigate damages, her delay in filing the complaint, and her receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

The Board found that the complainant made reasonable efforts to mitigate her damages and declined to deduct unemployment insurance benefits from the award.

However, the Board reduced the compensation period by 16 weeks due to an unexplained delay in filing the complaint.

The employer was ordered to pay $10,242.18 in compensation and interest.

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights under section 57(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent union raised a preliminary objection that the application was untimely because a collective agreement had already been reached.

The Board found that the union and the employer had reached a final resolution of the collective agreement terms on July 11, prior to the filing of the termination application on July 12.

The Board rejected the employer's argument that the agreement was conditional on the resolution of outstanding unfair labour practice complaints.

Consequently, the termination application was dismissed as untimely.

The respondent employer requested an adjournment of an unfair labour practice complaint hearing because its key witness, a lawyer involved in related proceedings, was unavailable.

The Board noted that the witness had not been summonsed by the respondent and chose to attend another proceeding.

However, the Board granted the adjournment on the condition that the respondent undertake not to take any reprisals against employees summonsed by the union to attend Board proceedings, and that it remove any disciplinary action already taken against the grievors.

The Board also directed the respondent to post copies of the decision in the workplace.

The applicant union applied for relief under the Labour Relations Act.

After initial delays in scheduling, the Board set five hearing dates in September 1991.

The parties subsequently agreed to adjourn four of the five dates due to scheduling conflicts.

The Board cancelled the agreed-upon dates, directing the matter to proceed on the single remaining date, and warned the parties that further hearing dates would likely not be available until March 1992 due to their conduct.

Two local unions applied for certification in the construction industry.

The applicants filed combination applications for membership and receipts, but the evidence of membership in one local union could not be applied to the other.

As a result, neither applicant had numerically sufficient membership evidence to be certified or to justify a representation vote.

The Board dismissed the applications without a hearing.

The Energy and Chemical Workers Union filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.

Prior to the hearing, the grievor requested to be substituted as the complainant.

At the hearing, the complainant union failed to appear.

The respondent objected to the grievor's substitution request.

The Board denied the substitution request and dismissed the complaint due to the complainant's failure to appear and prosecute the matter.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated the statutory freeze provisions of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to pay maturity and promotional salary increases after the expiry of the collective agreement.

The employer argued that its historical practice during freeze periods was not to pay such increases, establishing a privilege or 'business as usual'.

The majority of the Board upheld the complaint, finding that the clear language of the expired collective agreement governed the freeze period, and the employer's past practice during previous freezes did not override the terms of the agreement.

The employer was ordered to pay the increases.

The applicant filed an application for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The ballot box was sealed pending a determination of whether the applicant was a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1)(p) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the applicant had only completed two of the five steps required to establish trade union status prior to the application date, as it had not admitted members, ratified the constitution, or elected officers.

The application was dismissed.