E. Norris Davis

The complainant filed a complaint alleging the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under sections 68 and 70 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to process her wrongful dismissal grievance.

The respondent moved to dismiss the complaint due to extreme delay, as it was filed 19 months after the complainant's termination.

The Board found that the delay was extreme and without mitigating circumstances, causing prejudice to the respondent's ability to present a defense.

The Board exercised its discretion to refuse to entertain the complaint and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights less than one year after the respondent union was certified.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the application was premature under section 57(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant argued that section 61(3)(a) modified the one-year period because six months had elapsed since the commencement of a legal strike.

The Board held that the one-year protection period under section 57(1) is a minimum that cannot be shortened by section 61(3), and dismissed the application as premature.

The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection arguing that the reverse onus provision in section 89(5) of the Labour Relations Act violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically the presumption of innocence and the right not to be compelled as a witness.

The Board dismissed the objection, following its previous jurisprudence that the reverse onus is a matter of evidence and procedure, not a presumption of guilt.

A request for an adjournment to apply to the courts was denied, and the Board proceeded to hear the complaint.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a bargaining unit consisting of two night auditors.

The respondent employer argued that the appropriate unit should be a 'tag end' unit encompassing all remaining unorganized employees, which would include nine employees across various classifications.

The Board found that the applicant's proposed unit was not viable for collective bargaining and would result in excessive fragmentation.

The Board determined that a 'tag end' unit was appropriate.

As the applicant had membership support of less than forty-five percent in the appropriate unit, the application for certification was dismissed.

The union brought applications under sections 1(4), 63, and 124 of the Labour Relations Act against George Hamers Limited and L & M Plumbing & Heating.

The Board dismissed the section 1(4) application, finding that L & M was merely a division of George Hamers Limited and not a separate legal entity.

The section 63 application was also dismissed as no collective agreement was in force when the assets were acquired in 1967.

However, the Board upheld the section 124 grievance, finding that George Hamers Limited violated the collective agreement by assigning bargaining unit work to a non-union employee in its L & M division.

The union was awarded damages.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging the respondent employer violated the collective agreement by sub-contracting carpentry work to a non-union employer.

The respondent argued the workers were hired by the hour and some were union members.

The Board found the arrangement was a sub-contract in violation of the agreement and that the employer failed to use the union hiring hall.

The Board awarded compensatory damages to the union for the lost job opportunities, equivalent to the wages and trust fund contributions that would have been paid to union members.

The applicant union sought to represent a new bargaining unit comprised of controllers, inspectors, and a garage foreman employed by the respondent city's transit department.

The respondent argued that these persons exercised managerial functions and were therefore excluded from the definition of "employee" under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the garage foreman exercised typical supervisory duties, including assigning work and participating in hiring.

The Board also found that controllers and inspectors exercised effective control and direction over the work force, including disciplinary authority and enforcement of transit policies.

Consequently, the Board concluded that all the disputed classifications exercised managerial functions and dismissed the application for certification.

One Board member dissented in part, finding that inspectors did not exercise managerial functions.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent nursing home violated the Labour Relations Act by laying off its housekeeping and janitorial employees and contracting out their work.

The union argued the employer bargained in bad faith by failing to disclose this intention during negotiations and that the contracting out was motivated by anti-union animus to avoid the economic impact of the collective agreement.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer had no intention to contract out when the agreement was signed.

Furthermore, the Board held that the decision to contract out was a legitimate business decision motivated solely by a desire to save money, not by anti-union animus, and was permitted under the management rights clause of the collective agreement.

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 complainant union alleged that the respondent employer failed to comply with a previous Board order directing the parties to bargain in good faith.

During a mediation meeting, the respondent tabled new proposals and insisted they be resolved before any economic issues or the union's prior proposals could be discussed.

The Board found that the respondent's insistence on limiting discussion to its own pre-conditions restricted the rational, informed discussion required by the duty to bargain in good faith.

The Board concluded the respondent failed to comply with the previous order and directed the filing of the determination with the Supreme Court for enforcement.

The complainants, employed as punchers in a smelter, refused to return to work after a break, alleging that the work place was unsafe due to excessive heat and the lack of a second fan on their converter.

They were subsequently disciplined by the employer and filed a complaint under The Employees' Health and Safety Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the complainants did not have reasonable cause to believe the work place was unsafe, as the conditions were not abnormal for the operation and the refusal appeared to be based on other factors such as an inherited production mess and a short turn-around shift.

The group of objectors requested the Board to reconsider its decision finding that statements of desire (petitions) opposing the union's certification were not voluntary.

The objectors argued the Board improperly relied on testimony from a witness who did not testify in the certification portion of the proceedings.

The Board determined it had jurisdiction to reconsider the matter itself without referring it to a new panel.

Upon reviewing the evidence afresh and explicitly excluding the impugned testimony, the Board concluded that the active involvement of management and the extensive petition-related activities of an employee during working hours created a perception of employer support.

The Board affirmed its original decision that the petitions were not voluntary.

The applicant and a group of employees applied under section 52 of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration that the respondent trade union was not entitled to represent the employees in the bargaining unit at the time it entered into a voluntary recognition agreement with the employer.

The employer did not appear or file employee lists.

The Board found that the onus of establishing entitlement rested on the parties to the agreement.

Evidence showed that at the time the agreement was signed, there were 20 employees in the bargaining unit, but the union only had support from six employees due to several resignations from membership prior to the agreement's execution.

As the union did not represent a simple majority, the Board granted the application, declaring the union was not entitled to represent the employees, and the voluntary recognition agreement ceased to operate.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to file formal grievances regarding an unsafe working condition, a request for a job description, and a request to remove a medical work restriction.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union had successfully resolved the first two issues informally and that the failure to file a grievance for the third issue was due to the complainant's refusal to sign the grievance form prepared by the union.

The Board concluded there was no evidence of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer bargained in bad faith contrary to section 14 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer had withdrawn from a joint bargaining structure at the last minute, accepted a settlement for its Montreal plant but not its Bramalea plant, and resurrected a previously settled issue regarding manning after a six-month strike.

The Board found no bad faith in these actions, as the employer was entitled to evaluate its economic interests and reappraise its position.

However, the Board found the employer bargained in bad faith with a second local by refusing to negotiate its proposals until a settlement was reached with the first local.

The employer was ordered to meet and bargain in good faith with the second local.