F. C. Burnet

The complainant filed a reprisal complaint under the Environmental Protection Act, alleging he was discharged for refusing to perform work he believed was illegal.

At the hearing, the complainant requested an adjournment pending the outcome of parallel court proceedings and due to fears of police harassment.

The Board denied the adjournment, noting its mandate to deal with labour relations matters expeditiously.

The complainant subsequently requested to withdraw his complaint, which the Board permitted, terminating the inquiry.

The union applied for certification and filed unfair labour practice complaints.

The employer refused to post the required Board notices to employees.

Board officers, accompanied by a sheriff's officer, forcibly entered the employer's premises to post the notices.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing that the Board lacked jurisdiction to use force and that its actions created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Board dismissed the objections, holding that its statutory power to enter premises to post notices implicitly includes the authority to use reasonable force.

The Board found that a reasonable person would view the actions as fulfilling the Board's statutory duties, not as allying with the union.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of drivers and warehousemen at the respondent's Hamilton location, and requested the inclusion of employees at the Oakville and St. Catharines branches, as well as two order desk dispatchers at Hamilton.

The respondent argued for separate bargaining units for each location and claimed the dispatchers were managerial.

The Board held that the geographical scope should include all three locations due to a strong community of interest and the viability of a larger unit.

The Board also found that the two dispatchers did not exercise effective control over the drivers' employment relationship and were therefore employees, not managers.

A formal certificate was issued for the combined unit.

One Board member dissented.

The union applied for certification to represent employees of the Elizabeth Fry Society of Ottawa.

The parties disputed the composition of the bargaining unit, specifically regarding Ontario Youth Corps Programme participants, relief workers, students, and contract employees.

The Board found that Youth Corps participants were employees but excluded them from the bargaining units due to their unique terms of employment and lack of community of interest.

The Board applied its standard 7-week rule to determine part-time status for relief workers and its 30/30 rule to determine which employees were in the bargaining unit on the application date.

The Board certified the union on an interim basis for the full-time unit and appointed a Labour Relations Officer to settle the part-time unit list.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of retail store employees.

The parties disputed whether the bargaining unit description should be municipal-wide or restricted to a specific street location.

The Board followed its general practice in the retail industry, determining that where there is only a single retail store at the time of the application, certification should be on a municipal-wide basis.

The Board certified the applicant as the bargaining agent for all employees at the respondent's retail store(s) in Peterborough.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union violated section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by permitting members to be hired without referral slips during an emergency repair job, and by failing to secure his employment as a job steward.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union's business manager exercised reasonable discretion to waive strict hiring hall rules in an emergency to promote employment for members.

The Board concluded the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.

Two applications were filed to terminate the bargaining rights of the Teamsters Union Local 938 for employees of Brink's Canada Limited at its North Bay location.

The union argued the applications should be dismissed because the master collective agreement created a single, comprehensive bargaining unit across multiple locations.

The Board rejected this argument, finding that the master agreement preserved separate bargaining units for each location and local union.

On the merits, the Board found the statement of desire for the full-time unit was voluntary and ordered a representation vote.

However, the application for the part-time unit was dismissed due to insufficient evidence regarding the origination and circulation of the statement.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of business occurred between British Brand Clothes Limited and Antonacci Clothes Inc., and that Antonacci Clothes was bound by the union's bargaining rights.

British Brand had ceased its clothing production operations and terminated its employees.

Patrick Antonacci, a former designer and minority shareholder of British Brand, incorporated a new company, purchased British Brand's production equipment, and hired several former employees to perform contract work, including exclusively supplying British Brand's continuing retail operation.

The Board found that a sale of part of a business had occurred under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, as there was a substantial continuation of the predecessor's business organization, equipment, and key personnel.

The Board declined to order a representation vote, finding that the sale did not create a representation issue requiring a vote.

The application was granted.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The issue was whether the applicant met the 45% threshold of employees in the bargaining unit.

The union argued that 13 persons whose employment was terminated due to subcontracting should be counted if their pending grievance succeeded.

The employer argued for the 30/30 rule, which would exclude them.

The Board held that under section 1(2) of the Labour Relations Act, the terminated individuals should be treated as employees if reinstated by the arbitration board.

The matter was adjourned pending the release of the arbitration award.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the respondent was bound by a collective agreement between the union and Dominion Stores Limited, arguing that the respondent's leasing of premises formerly operated by Dominion constituted a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the respondent's operation of an ethnically oriented supermarket at the location was an expansion of its own pre-existing business rather than a continuation of Dominion's business.

The Board noted the hiatus between operations, the extensive renovations, and the lack of transfer of goodwill or assets other than the lease.