E. J. Brady

The applicant, an employee at Mohawk College, applied for an exemption from paying union dues to the respondent trade union on the basis of his religious beliefs.

The applicant objected to the union's failure to acknowledge God and its support for the right to strike.

Applying a subjective test of sincerity, the Board found that the applicant's beliefs were sincerely held, religious in nature, and the cause of his objection.

The application for exemption was granted.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of store managers at the respondent's retail outlets.

The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the store managers exercised managerial functions and were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the store managers had the authority to hire and phase out temporary employees, schedule hours of work, and evaluate employees.

The Board concluded that the store managers exercised managerial functions and dismissed the application for certification.

The complainant alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to properly process his grievances regarding overtime distribution and his subsequent discharge.

He also alleged the employer discharged him for filing the overtime grievance, contrary to section 66(a).

The Board found the union acted arbitrarily and with a non-caring attitude in handling the grievances, violating section 68.

The Board deferred the section 66(a) complaint against the employer to arbitration, ordering the union to engage independent counsel to revise and process the grievances to arbitration at its own expense.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging the respondent company was bound by a provincial agreement based on a 'short form' agreement signed by an on-site installer in 1975.

The Board found that the installer lacked both actual and apparent authority to bind the company to a collective agreement.

Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence that the company subsequently ratified the agreement through its conduct.

The grievance was dismissed.

The applicant union applied under section 82 of The Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 1975 to determine whether the incumbents of 15 positions at the respondent college were 'employees' within the meaning of the Act.

The respondent argued that the positions were excluded as managerial or confidential.

The Board found that 11 first-line supervisors exercised sufficient managerial authority, including handling grievances and monitoring performance, to be excluded from the bargaining unit.

However, the Board found that four other positions, including a Programmer Analyst, Systems Analyst, Payroll Assistant, and Payroll Clerk, did not have regular and material involvement in confidential matters and were therefore employees included in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer had one part-time employee on the application date but a history of hiring other part-time employees.

The Board varied its previous decision appointing an officer to inquire into community of interest, deciding instead to follow its usual practice of excluding persons regularly employed for not more than twenty-four hours per week from the bargaining unit.

The union applied for certification for two bargaining units.

The union demonstrated membership support in excess of 55% for both units.

However, a group of employees filed statements of desire (petitions) opposing the certification, which included signatures from employees who had previously signed union membership cards.

The Board found that the employer had held a meeting and posted newspaper clippings suggesting that unionization would lead to layoffs and plant closures.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the petitions did not represent a voluntary change of heart, as employees were motivated by a perceived threat to their job security.

The Board gave no weight to the petitions and granted certification for both bargaining units without a representation vote.

The applicant filed an application for a declaration that the respondent union no longer represented the part-time employees.

A similar application had been dismissed by the Board less than a month prior.

The Board applied the Trinidad Leaseholds principle, balancing the employees' right to test the union's support against the need for stability in collective bargaining.

Finding no special circumstances, the Board exercised its discretion under section 92(2)(i) of the Act to refuse to entertain the successive application, allowing the union a reasonable opportunity to pursue collective bargaining.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer requested an adjournment and a change of venue to Ottawa to allow for simultaneous translation, arguing the proceedings should be bilingual.

The Board denied the adjournment, noting its strict policy against non-consensual adjournments absent compelling circumstances, and observing that an interpreter was already provided and the respondent was represented by bilingual counsel.

The respondent and its counsel then withdrew from the hearing.

The Board proceeded, found the applicant to be a trade union, determined the appropriate bargaining unit, and issued a certificate as the union had more than 55% membership support.

The applicant union alleged that a 'sale of a business' occurred under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act when the respondent, Beef Terminal (1979) Limited, leased the premises and equipment of the predecessor, Beef Terminal.

The predecessor operated a comprehensive meat packing business, while the respondent operated a custom slaughterhouse using the same facilities and many of the same employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the respondent acquired a coherent and severable part of the predecessor's business.

The Board concluded there was no substantial change in the character of the business to justify terminating bargaining rights under section 55(5).

The union's bargaining rights were preserved, but a related employer application under section 1(4) was dismissed.

One Board Member dissented, arguing the business character had substantially changed.

The complainant alleged he was discharged contrary to section 24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after raising concerns about frayed electrical cables on vacuum cleaners.

The Board found that the complainant's communications with management primarily focused on criticizing his supervisor's competence rather than raising specific safety hazards.

The Board concluded the discharge was motivated by the complainant's insubordinate conduct and his inappropriate method of communicating complaints via a client's log book, which embarrassed the employer, rather than any attempt to enforce the Act.

The complaint was dismissed.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint regarding the discharge of a key union organizer.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing the union.

The Board found the petition was not proven to be voluntary due to the presence of a management member during its signing, and certified the union without a vote.

Regarding the discharge, the Board found the employer proved the employee was fired for an unauthorized after-hours entry onto company property, not for his union activities.

The unfair labour practice complaint was dismissed.

The union applied for certification of employees working in the respondent's radio paging, mobile communication, and telephone answering services.

The respondent objected on the basis that its business fell under federal jurisdiction as a radio communication undertaking.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed constitutional jurisprudence, including the Radio Reference case, and concluded that radio communication by Hertzian waves falls under exclusive federal jurisdiction, even where the signals are emitted and received entirely within a single province.

Finding that the telephone answering service was not severable from the radio communication services, the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.