F. S. Cooke

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of production employees.

The parties agreed on all matters except whether the 'chemical control supervisor' should be excluded.

The respondent initially sought exclusion on managerial grounds under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, but later changed its position to argue a lack of community of interest.

The Board permitted the change in argument as the applicant did not object during the Board Officer's examination.

Based on the Officer's report, the Board found the chemical control supervisor to be a technical employee with a greater community of interest with office and sales staff than with production employees, and excluded the position from the bargaining unit.

A certificate was issued for the agreed unit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued several decisions regarding applications for certification and unfair labour practice complaints.

In the first case, the Board found that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act when three managers obtained signatures on a petition opposing the trade union.

The Board directed a representation vote and ordered remedial measures, including a posting and union access to employees.

Other decisions addressed the appropriate bargaining unit for a specialized business centre in a department store, a duty of fair representation complaint involving municipal technical employees, a sale of a business application concerning a retail food store, and the exclusion of a chemical control supervisor from a bargaining unit based on community of interest.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the statutory freeze under section 79(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer sent an employee home for refusing to paint her new replacement vehicle black.

During an ongoing certification proceeding, the parties had previously stipulated as a fact that the employer's policy of requiring black cars was no longer in effect and was merely encouraged.

The majority of the Board held that this stipulated fact constituted an agreed term or condition of employment that could not be altered without the union's consent during the statutory freeze period.

The Board directed that the employee be reinstated with full compensation.

The Vice-Chairman dissented, finding that the stipulation was merely a description of facts and did not create a new term or condition of employment.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by refusing to hire the grievor, a union president, at various non-nuclear construction sites.

The employer refused to hire the grievor on the basis that he was a security risk, citing his 1975 criminal conviction for conspiracy to export arms and a 1982 arrest at the U.S. border involving the smuggling of aliens.

The Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the union failed to prove the employer acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or in bad faith in assessing the grievor's reliability.

The Board also held that even if the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applied to the employer's employment decisions, the refusal to hire based on security concerns related to criminal conduct did not violate the grievor's constitutional rights.

The applicant trade union brought an application under sections 1(4) and 63 of the Labour Relations Act, claiming Ermac Power & Control Ltd. was a successor or related employer to Twin Electric.

Twin Electric argued it was never bound by the collective agreement as it had never formally joined the employers' organization.

The Board found that Twin Electric had participated in the benefits of full membership for years, abided by the collective agreement, and behaved as a member.

The Board held that the first collective agreement entered into on Twin's behalf conferred voluntary recognition, and bargaining rights continued under successive agreements.

The matter was directed to be listed for continuation on the successor and related employer issues.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent school board violated the Labour Relations Act by altering the working conditions and pay of school bus drivers during a statutory freeze period and to interfere with the union's formation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the changes were motivated by legitimate budgetary concerns following reduced provincial grants, not anti-union animus.

Furthermore, while the changes did constitute an alteration of employment conditions, the firm decision to implement them was communicated to the employees prior to the commencement of the statutory freeze period triggered by the union's second certification application.

The complaints were dismissed.

The intervening employees requested an adjournment of the hearing because they received only seven days' notice and their counsel needed more time to prepare.

The Board granted the adjournment.

The complainant then requested that the intervening employees pay its costs for the day.

The Board denied the request, noting that it was not satisfied with the amount of notice given to the intervening employees and that it would be inappropriate to exact costs as a condition of the adjournment.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent employer failed to comply with an oral settlement of a prior grievance.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction to enforce an oral settlement.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that it has jurisdiction to enforce oral settlements and that there is no requirement for such settlements to be in writing.

On the merits, the Board found that the respondent's Installation Manager had apparent authority to enter into the settlement on behalf of the employer.

The Board directed the respondent to pay the agreed settlement amounts.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent projectionists employed by the respondent at two theatres in Goderich, Ontario.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent argued that part-time employees should form a separate bargaining unit, but the Board applied its policy that part-time employees are normally included in a craft unit.

Finding that more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant, the Board granted the application and ordered a certificate to issue.

The applicant union sought certification for employees of the respondent nursing home.

Following a representation vote, two employees who were on maternity leave objected that they had been omitted from the voters' list and were unable to vote.

The Board held that employees on maternity leave are eligible to vote because their prospects for continued employment are sufficiently certain.

However, the Board declined to set aside the vote, finding that one employee failed to take reasonable steps to inquire about her eligibility prior to the vote, and the other employee's ballot could not have mathematically affected the outcome.

The union was certified for the full-time bargaining unit.

The union applied for certification and a representation vote was held.

The union won the counted ballots by a margin of five votes.

The employer challenged the status of a homeworker, arguing she was not a part-time employee.

The Board applied the Sydenham Hospital test, converting her piece-rate income to hours using the minimum wage, and found she worked less than 24 hours in a majority of the six weeks preceding the application.

The Board refused the employer's request to renege on a pre-election agreement to exclude foremen from the voting constituency.

Finally, the Board dismissed the employer's argument that union campaign propaganda regarding a profit-sharing plan invalidated the election, finding the statements were not false and did not impair the employees' freedom of choice.

A certificate was issued to the union.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent stage employees of the respondent.

The respondent challenged the applicant's trade union status and the validity of its membership evidence, arguing that the applicant failed to follow its own constitution regarding competency examinations, initiation fees, and residency requirements.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also upheld the validity of the membership evidence, noting that the statutory definition of a member supersedes union constitutional requirements for the purposes of certification, and that the residency requirement did not violate the Act.

The matter was referred to a labour relations officer to inquire into the bargaining unit description and employee lists.

The union grieved the employer's refusal to hire a union member referred through the hiring hall to work at nuclear generating stations.

The employer refused to hire the grievor because of his past criminal conviction for attempting to export arms and pending U.S. charges related to smuggling aliens, both allegedly connected to the Irish Republican Army.

The Board held that while the collective agreement did not give the employer an unbridled right to reject hiring hall referrals, the employer retained the right to reject persons it believed to be unreliable or a security risk, provided it acted reasonably, in good faith, and without discrimination.

Given the catastrophic risks associated with nuclear facilities, the employer's refusal to hire the grievor was reasonable.

The grievance was dismissed with respect to the nuclear sites.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The respondent employer alleged that the union organizer misrepresented the initiation fee structure by telling employees they would have to pay a higher fee if they did not join immediately, thereby coercing them into signing membership cards.

The Board found that while there may have been some confusion, the organizer did not intend to mislead employees and the statements did not amount to coercion or fundamental misrepresentation.

The Board also found that counter-petitions signed by employees reaffirming their support for the union were voluntary.

As the union had the support of more than 55 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit, a certificate was issued without a representation vote.