F. C. Burnet

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer terminated several employees for their union organizing activities.

The Board found that the employer's reasons for the terminations were a pretext to cloak anti-union animus, violating sections 64, 66, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

Given the severity of the employer's misconduct at the inception of the organizing campaign, the Board concluded that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained in a representation vote.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 8 of the Act to certify the union without a vote, finding it had adequate membership support for collective bargaining.

The applicant union sought declarations under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Masstron Scale Ltd. was a successor employer to Toledo Scale Division and that the two were related businesses under common control.

The respondents conceded the sale and common control but argued against a declaration binding Masstron to the collective agreement, claiming it would extend rather than protect bargaining rights.

The Board interpreted the collective agreement's scope clause in light of the parties' past practice, finding that the union's bargaining rights covered the geographic territory in question.

The Board granted the section 1(4) declaration, finding it necessary to prevent the erosion of existing bargaining rights, and declared Masstron bound by the collective agreement.

Two unions applied under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act for directions allowing their representatives access to the respondent's remote bush camps to organize employees.

The incumbent union, which already represented the employees, was permitted to intervene.

The Board held that the only criteria for an access order under section 11 are that employees reside on property owned or controlled by the employer.

The Board rejected arguments that access should only be granted if there are no other reasonable means of communication, or that a more stringent test applies when employees are already represented by another union.

Finding the statutory criteria met, the Board directed the employer to allow access subject to specific conditions to prevent disruption.

The complainants, academic employees at Sheridan College, alleged that their union (OPSEU) breached its duty of fair representation under section 76 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act during the 1984 negotiations.

They claimed the union bargained in bad faith with the employer and intentionally misled the membership regarding its bargaining demands, specifically concerning a workload formula, to precipitate a strike.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint.

The Board held that employees lack status to enforce the union's duty to bargain in good faith with the employer.

Furthermore, the Board found that the union's bargaining tactics, including its refusal to receive a late offer from the employer to avoid triggering a mandatory vote that would disrupt a scheduled strike vote, did not constitute arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct toward the employees.

The Board also concluded that the union's communications with the membership did not amount to fundamental misrepresentation.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of occasional teachers employed by the respondent school board.

The parties disputed whether 'supply instructors'—unqualified persons employed on an emergency basis to substitute for regular teachers—should be included in the same bargaining unit as qualified occasional teachers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that occasional teachers and supply instructors have different communities of interest due to statutory distinctions and employment aspirations.

The Board concluded that the appropriate bargaining unit should consist solely of occasional teachers, consistent with its past practice, and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant union applied for a right of access to the respondent employer's remote highway construction site under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act for organizing purposes.

The parties agreed on most terms of access but disputed the effective date and whether union representatives must sign a waiver of liability.

The Board ordered immediate access, rejecting the employer's request for a delay until the owner could be present.

The Board also held that the statutory right of access should not be conditional on waiving liability for potential injury or loss, noting that union representatives had agreed to abide by safety regulations.

A dissenting board member would have required the waiver, arguing that the employer should not bear the potential costs of union organizing activities.

The applicant trade unions sought to add Conrad Black and Hollinger Inc. as respondents to related employer and unfair labour practice applications involving Willett Foods Limited and various franchisees.

A previous panel of the Board had already dismissed a similar request by one of the unions to add Black and a predecessor corporation.

The Board applied principles analogous to res judicata and issue estoppel, finding that the new allegations did not materially alter the basis of the claims.

The Board reaffirmed that section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act is not intended merely to provide access to 'deep pockets' absent allegations of a transfer of work or other attempts to frustrate collective bargaining.

The request to add the respondents was denied, and the complaints against them were dismissed.

In a complex proceeding involving nearly two hundred parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued procedural directions regarding the service of documents and the addition of respondents.

The Board ruled that service on a party's agent or counsel would be sufficient, and established a procedure for amending applications to add respondents by analogy to the Board's Rules of Procedure, requiring the applicant to provide amended filings and notice to all parties.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer hospital.

The employer engaged in significant misconduct, including altering schedules, terminating the entire registered nurses' bargaining unit, and circulating threatening letters prior to a representation vote, which the union lost.

The Board found the employer violated the statutory freeze and committed unfair labour practices tainted by anti-union animus.

The Board ordered extensive remedies, including reinstatement and compensation, and exercised its discretion under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act to certify the union, finding the employer's actions made it unlikely that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained in a representation vote.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The respondent employer brought a preliminary motion to extend the terminal date, arguing that the Board notices were received and posted late, giving employees insufficient time to respond.

The majority of the Board dismissed the motion, finding that the actual notice given to employees was adequate, the Registrar complied with Rule 2, and no employees had appeared or objected to the application.

The Board found that the applicant had the requisite membership support and ordered that a certificate issue.

One Board member dissented, arguing that the time provided to employees fell short of the prescribed minimum and the terminal date should have been extended.

The complainants, four warehouse employees, refused to work due to a noxious odour emanating from a shipment of Italian wallpaper, which caused them headaches and nausea.

After an inspector issued an interim order requiring the employer to provide respirators, the employer failed to promptly recall the employees and subsequently dismissed two of them.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employees had reasonable grounds to refuse the work under section 23 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board held that the employer violated section 24 of the Act by penalizing the employees and dismissing two of them in reprisal for exercising their rights.

The Board ordered reinstatement and compensation for lost wages.

The applicant union sought certification and filed unfair labour practice complaints against the respondent hospital.

In an interim ruling, the Ontario Labour Relations Board addressed two evidentiary issues.

First, the Board permitted the applicant to lead evidence of events that occurred prior to a previously withdrawn certification application, but only for the limited purpose of establishing a pattern of unlawful activity.

Second, the Board allowed the respondent to adduce evidence regarding its motivation for dismissing six nurses, despite the respondent not having raised this defence earlier, finding that the applicant's right of reply would cure any prejudice.

The applicants sought a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

They submitted a petition signed by employees indicating they no longer wished to be represented by the union.

The Board found that the petition was tainted by the involvement of a junior member of management, who had directed the lead applicant to her husband for assistance in filing the application.

Due to this management involvement, the Board concluded the petition was not a voluntary expression of the employees' desires and dismissed the application.

One Board Member dissented, arguing the management contact was incidental and did not constitute improper influence.

The complainant union alleged that the grievor was discharged contrary to section 66 of the Labour Relations Act due to his union activities during a legal strike.

The employer maintained the grievor was discharged for intimidating and threatening conduct on the picket line when he reached into a company van transporting replacement workers.

The Board found the employer met its burden under section 89(5) to prove the discharge was not motivated by anti-union animus, but rather by the grievor's picket line misconduct.

The Board also found no breach of the Act regarding the employer's failure to reinstate the grievor under the 'no reprisals' clause, as the settlement was prospective.

The complaint was dismissed.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board pursuant to section 107 of the Labour Relations Act regarding his authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The employer and the trade union had signed a memorandum of agreement, but the union argued it was null and void due to a common mistake regarding the calculation of a cost of living allowance (COLA) fold-in.

Both parties had mistakenly assumed the COLA entitlement was 10 cents per hour instead of 21 cents.

The Board held that the doctrine of common mistake does not vitiate a collective agreement where the parties specifically directed their minds to stipulated amounts and agreed to them without fraud or misrepresentation.

The Board concluded that a binding collective agreement was in effect and the Minister had no authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The applicant union applied for certification, submitting documentary evidence of membership for over 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit.

A group of employees filed statements of objection, including four individuals who had previously signed union membership cards.

The Board found that the origination and circulation of the opposition documents were heavily influenced by a managerial employee, with the employer's knowledge and support.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the statements of objection did not represent a voluntary change of heart.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and granted certification based on the documentary evidence.

One Board member dissented, arguing that a representation vote should have been ordered.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of part-time employees and students at the respondent hospital.

The parties agreed on the unit description except for the inclusion of students employed during the school vacation period.

The respondent argued that students lacked a community of interest or, alternatively, that a representation vote should be deferred until the summer when students were employed.

The Board declined to defer the vote based on the build-up principle and granted interim certification for the agreed-upon unit, excluding students pending a final determination of the bargaining unit composition.

The Board issued procedural directions for the exchange of pleadings and documents to resolve the outstanding issue.

The applicant union requested leave to withdraw its application for certification before a pre-hearing representation vote was directed.

The respondent hospital opposed the withdrawal and requested that the Board impose a bar on future applications under section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act, arguing the union was attempting to avoid an unfavourable vote.

The Board dismissed the application but declined to impose a bar or issue a warning, noting that a vote had not yet been directed and it would be inappropriate to adjudicate the likelihood of a vote merely to determine the burden of proof for a hypothetical future application.

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

The employee had a history of absenteeism and alcoholism but was discharged shortly after engaging in union campaigning and making a pro-union speech in the company cafeteria.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the reverse onus under section 89(5) of the Act, requiring the employer to prove that the discharge was not tainted by anti-union animus.

The Board found the employer's explanation for delaying the discharge to consult with other managers unpersuasive and concluded the employer failed to discharge its burden of proof.

The Board ordered compensation but declined to order reinstatement as the employee had already accepted other employment prior to his discharge.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the complaint, finding ample just cause for the discharge independent of any union activity.

The applicant union requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board state a case to the Divisional Court for contempt under section 13 of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act.

The respondents had previously refused to post Board notices regarding certification and unfair labour practice applications, and had obstructed a Labour Relations Officer attempting to post them.

The Board determined that it could state a case without holding a hearing, as the Divisional Court acts as the trial court for the contempt proceeding.

The Board consented to state the case, including the facts of the respondents' non-compliance and the officer's reports of obstruction.