E. G. Theobald

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed statements of desire (a petition) opposing the union.

The Board held a hearing to determine the voluntariness of the petition.

The Board found inconsistencies in the evidence of the employee who circulated the petition, including his failure to disclose leaving work early on the days he mailed the petition and related letters.

The Board concluded the objectors failed to discharge the onus of proving the petition was a voluntary expression of the employees' true wishes.

As the union had the requisite membership support, the Board certified the union, pending final resolution of the bargaining unit description regarding certain disputed positions.

The complainant union filed multiple unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the respondent employer violated the statutory freeze and discriminated against employees for their union support during a displacement organizing drive.

The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Board should defer the complaints to the grievance and arbitration process under the existing collective agreement with the incumbent union.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, declining to defer to arbitration because the complaints involved significant statutory rights, the complainant was not a party to the collective agreement, and the remedies available at arbitration might be inadequate.

Two unions applied for certification of the respondent's employees.

The incumbent union, UFCW, argued that its existing collective agreement with the predecessor employer automatically renewed and acted as a bar to the applications.

The applicant, CAW, argued that UFCW had abandoned its bargaining rights by failing to enforce the collective agreement for over a year after the respondent purchased the plant.

The Board found that the UFCW's decision not to enforce the agreement was a strategic choice to allow the new employer to establish itself financially, not an abandonment of bargaining rights.

The Board held that the collective agreement automatically renewed and constituted a bar to the certification applications, which were accordingly dismissed.

The applicant unions applied under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act for a direction allowing their representatives access to the employer's property, specifically the mining camp where employees reside, for the purpose of union organizing.

The employer objected to the scope and duration of the access, particularly regarding the bunkhouse areas located within the secured mine site.

The Board granted the application, finding no compelling reason to restrict access to areas where employees normally reside, and directed access subject to specific conditions and time limits.

The applicant parent union applied under section 82(2) of the Labour Relations Act for the Board's consent to extend its supervision and control over the respondent local for an additional year.

The supervision was initially requested by the local's membership due to severe internal frictions that impaired its functioning.

The Board found that the local could not function if supervision ended prematurely and noted the absence of opposition to the application.

The Board granted the application, leaving any early termination of supervision to be determined under the union's constitution.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The employer objected to the appointment, arguing that while it had granted voluntary recognition, no collective agreement had been entered into and the parties had not yet met to bargain as required by section 15 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that under section 16 of the Act, the Minister has the authority to appoint a conciliation officer based on the voluntary recognition agreement alone, regardless of whether a collective agreement was subsequently reached or whether the parties had met face-to-face to bargain.

The Ottawa Newspaper Guild applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of approximately 13 employees in the computer information services department of The Ottawa Citizen.

The employer opposed the application, arguing that a tag-end unit or a combined unit with the advertising department was appropriate.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employees in the computer information services department shared a sufficient community of interest to form a viable bargaining unit.

Given the employer's long history of fragmented, departmental bargaining units without serious labour relations difficulties, the Board concluded that the proposed departmental unit was appropriate and granted the application.

The applicant union applied for certification for employees of the respondent food service company in Chatham.

The parties disputed the geographic scope of the bargaining unit: the union sought a municipal-wide unit, while the employer argued for a client-specific unit limited to its operation at Eaton Yale.

The Board found that the employer's operations and terms of employment varied significantly depending on the client's needs, and that client-specific units were the norm in the non-vending food service industry.

The Board concluded that a municipal-wide unit would place undue strain on collective bargaining and determined that client-specific units were appropriate.

Certificates were issued for full-time and part-time units at the Eaton Yale location.

During a hearing for an unfair labour practice complaint, the union requested to be added as a party but was denied due to its late intervention without justification.

Subsequently, the complainant objected to the introduction of his employment application as an exhibit and refused to deliver the document to the Board, claiming the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board ruled that it has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the admissibility of evidence and ordered the complainant to deliver the document by a specified date, failing which the complaint would be dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote for a unit of part-time academic staff, professional counsellors, and professional librarians at the University of Ottawa.

The Board directed that a representation vote be conducted, defining the voting constituency and ordering that ballots of certain disputed categories of employees be segregated pending a final determination of the appropriate bargaining unit.

In an application for certification, the Board previously directed a pre-hearing representation vote and ordered the segregation of ballots for certain employee categories due to disputes over the bargaining unit description.

The applicant union and respondent employer subsequently agreed on the bargaining unit, and the applicant requested that the ballots of maintenance employees no longer be segregated, arguing the interveners had no status to object.

The Board rejected this late submission, noting the interveners arguably had status, and refused to revoke its direction to segregate the ballots pending a final determination of the appropriate bargaining unit.

The complainant, an employee at a meat processing plant, refused to hold a hog carcass while another employee operated a newly installed circular saw, citing safety concerns.

The complainant was subsequently given the choice to do the work or leave, which the Board found amounted to a discharge.

The Board held that the complainant had a reasonable belief that the work was unsafe and had adequately communicated this to his supervisor.

The Board concluded that the employer violated section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by discharging the complainant for exercising his right to refuse unsafe work, and ordered compensation.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

A group of objecting employees filed two statements of desire.

The second statement was delivered to the Board's offices after hours on the terminal date and left at the reception desk with a security guard who was not a Board employee.

The Board held that physical delivery to its premises constituted receipt under Rule 75(1)(a), making the filing timely.

The union argued the statements were involuntary because the employer had recently introduced written disciplinary warnings.

The Board rejected this argument, finding the employees were reacting to the behavior of union supporters rather than employer coercion.

Given the overlap between union members and objectors, the Board exercised its discretion to order a representation vote.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board considered applications arising from the franchising of former Dominion stores to Mr. Grocer franchisees.

The union sought a related employer declaration under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, arguing that Dominion, its subsidiary Willett Foods, and the franchisee Penmarkay Foods were under common control and direction.

Penmarkay sought to terminate the union's bargaining rights under s. 63(5), claiming a substantial change in the business.

The Board dismissed the s. 63(5) application, finding no fundamental change in the work performed.

The Board granted the s. 1(4) declaration, finding that Willett exercised real economic control over Penmarkay through the franchise agreement, which dictated margins, rent, and other costs, effectively controlling labour relations.

The declaration preserved the consolidated bargaining structure.

The complainant union, Local N-1, filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint seeking the assignment of its members to work on a newly installed Harris N-900 web offset press.

The employer had assigned the work to members of the respondent union, Local 211.

The Board considered factors including skill and training, employer practice, area practice, and collective agreement provisions.

Finding that the offset process requires specific skills that Local 211 members possessed through experience and training, and noting the employer's historical assignment of offset work to Local 211, the Board confirmed the employer's assignment of the work to Local 211.

The union requested a hearing to quantify damages from a previous grievance award and to amend the style of cause to add a related company, J.B. Carroll Electric Limited, following a section 1(4) declaration by another panel.

The Board held that amending the style of cause was unnecessary because the section 1(4) declaration already made the two companies one employer for the purposes of the Act, meaning the assets of both were susceptible to legal process.

The Board also determined the appropriate interest rate on the agreed-upon compensation of $42,149.25, rejecting the employer's argument for a fluctuating rate and fixing it at 11% from March 11, 1983.

The applicant union referred grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent successor employer breached the collective agreement by failing to pay union wages and benefits after a sale of business.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction over non-construction work and that the grievors failed to mitigate their damages by refusing to work for the new non-union company.

The Board held it had jurisdiction under sections 124 and 89 to hear all aspects of the grievances.

The Board further held that the grievors were not required to mitigate their losses by accepting employment on substantially poorer terms, and that the respondent's liability commenced on the date of the sale, not the date of the Board's prior successor rights declaration.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer failed to bargain in good faith.

The employer failed to appear at the hearing.

The Board found the employer contravened section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to provide wage information, reneging on previously agreed language regarding union dues check-off, and pressing illegal demands to impasse, including a demand for employee ratification.

The Board also found the employer's request for a section 40 final offer vote was unlawful as it was used to avoid the duty to bargain.

The Board directed the employer to execute a collective agreement containing the agreed-upon terms.