F. W. Murray

The respondent employer raised the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a defence to a grievance alleging a violation of the union security clause (article 3) of a collective agreement.

The parties agreed to have the Board determine as a preliminary issue whether the collective agreement was subject to Charter scrutiny.

The Board found that the collective agreement was negotiated by entities that are not part of government, and the negotiation of a collective agreement is a private matter not involving the exercise of government policy or function.

Consequently, the Board held that the collective agreement is not subject to the Charter and directed that the grievance be heard on its merits.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The intervener union sought intervener status, claiming it represented employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board considered whether dues check-off lists constitute membership evidence for intervener status, the appropriate time for determining representation, and when membership evidence must be filed.

The Board found that the intervener submitted adequate evidence of representation in a timely manner and granted it status to participate as an intervener.

The employer applied under section 106(1) of the Labour Relations Act for the Board to reconsider and amend a certificate to specifically exclude the position of 'secretary/clerk'.

The parties had already entered into a collective agreement.

The Board dismissed the application, noting its long-standing policy that once a collective agreement is negotiated, the certificate is spent and the bargaining unit is defined by the collective agreement.

The Board noted that questions of employee status under section 106(2) remain within its jurisdiction but are subject to estoppel-like principles.

The complainants, having been partially successful in their unfair labour practice complaints against the respondent union, sought reconsideration of the Board's decision declining to award them costs.

The complainants argued that internal union resolutions obligated the union to pay their costs and that the union's refusal to do so while paying the individual respondents' legal fees constituted a breach of the duty of fair representation.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, reaffirming its long-standing policy against awarding costs in section 89 complaints.

The Board noted that it lacks jurisdiction to enforce internal union resolutions or supervise union expenditures, and found that the complainants' mixed success and the protraction of the hearing by both sides further militated against an award of costs.

During an application for certification, the respondent employer alleged that two employees had not paid the required one dollar fee when signing union membership cards.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held an evidentiary hearing to assess the credibility of the witnesses.

The Board found that the union collector had engaged in deliberate misconduct by telling the employees not to worry about paying the fee and to conceal the non-payment.

Consequently, the Board rejected all 21 membership cards collected by that individual.

A dissenting Board member would have only rejected the two specific cards in question.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent purchaser of a tavern business committed an unfair labour practice by refusing to employ former employees because of their union membership.

The respondent declared bankruptcy and did not attend the hearing.

The Board found that because the sale occurred after the collective agreement expired, the respondent was not bound to continue the employment of the predecessor's employees.

Since the grievors did not formally apply for employment until months later, and there was no evidence of available positions or compensable loss at that time, the Board dismissed the complaint.

The applicant trade union originally applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board previously determined that the work performed was maintenance work, not construction work.

The applicant requested the application be processed under the general provisions of the Act.

The respondent and objecting employees opposed this request, citing procedural fairness.

The Board found no unfairness or prejudice and, following its established practice, ruled that the application would be treated as having been made under the general provisions.

The applicant trade union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer argued it was not an employer in the construction industry, as its painting work at petrochemical complexes was maintenance, not construction.

The Board found that the painting of existing structures for the primary purpose of sustaining and protecting operating systems constitutes maintenance work.

Consequently, the application was not properly made under the construction industry provisions.

The Board also struck out the respondent's allegations of union impropriety due to lack of particulars and rejected one membership card for failing to show a monetary payment.

Following a representation vote for full-time and part-time bargaining units, objecting employees challenged the voter eligibility of several individuals.

The Board applied its standard two-pronged eligibility rule, requiring an employee to be in the bargaining unit both on the date the vote is ordered and the date it is taken.

The Board found that temporary employees were eligible, but employees hired after the vote was ordered were not.

Furthermore, employees transferred from the part-time to the full-time unit between the two dates were ineligible to vote in either unit.

The Board upheld the full-time unit vote and certified the union, but directed a new vote for the part-time unit due to the participation of ineligible voters.

The applicant union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the employer transferred the chief union organizer and discharged two other union supporters due to anti-union animus.

The Board found that the employer's actions violated sections 64, 66, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

Concluding that the employer's misconduct created a climate where the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained, and noting the union had adequate membership support, the Board certified the union under section 8 of the Act and ordered the reinstatement of the discharged employees with compensation.

The complainant, a worker at an automotive parts manufacturer, refused to work on a production line due to concerns about static shocks.

The employer sent her home without assigning alternative work and subsequently suspended her for two days for refusing to punch out and for her conduct during the incident.

The worker filed a complaint alleging reprisals under section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the worker acted inappropriately by refusing to explain her safety concerns or meet with a health and safety representative, the employer breached the Act by failing to assign alternative work.

The Board also reduced the two-day suspension to a one-day suspension, finding the original penalty unduly severe.

The applicant union sought to certify a bargaining unit of occasional teachers employed by the respondent in its elementary panel.

The respondent argued for a composite unit including both elementary and secondary occasional teachers.

The Board found that a unit limited to the elementary panel was appropriate, mirroring the historical dichotomy in teacher collective bargaining.

The Board further held that occasional teachers on the secondary panel who occasionally worked in primary schools were not employees in the bargaining unit for the purposes of the certification application.

The applicant union sought certification for a single all-employee bargaining unit encompassing both the respondent's shop employees and its on-site construction installers.

The respondent argued for separate bargaining units.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the respondent engaged in both construction and non-construction activities but did not use a common work force for both.

Consequently, the Board ruled that the shop employees and the construction employees must constitute separate bargaining units, leaving the precise descriptions to be determined with a Labour Relations Officer.

The applicant referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondents' assignment of certain construction work to another union violated the collective agreement.

The respondents and the other union raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the grievance was essentially a jurisdictional dispute, which ousted the Board's jurisdiction under section 124.

The Board dismissed the objection, holding that while it may defer a section 124 grievance to a jurisdictional dispute proceeding under section 91 or a collective agreement mechanism as a matter of policy, its jurisdiction under section 124 is not ousted.

The Board also ruled that evidence regarding the collective agreement's dispute resolution mechanism was relevant to determining whether it should defer.

The applicant union sought certification for a unit of part-time employees of the respondent nursing and rest home.

The parties disputed whether there should be one inclusive bargaining unit or separate units for the nursing home and rest home.

The Board found that while the employees shared a community of interest, the Board's policy of having part-time units 'mirror' full-time units favoured separate units, as the parties had previously agreed to separate units for full-time employees.

The Board ordered separate bargaining units and issued certificates for both.

The applicants, employees of Fern Brand Waxes Ltd., applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union challenged the termination petition because 12 of the 22 signatures consisted of only first or last names, arguing this did not meet the formal requirements of the Board's Rule 73.

The Board found that the employees clearly intended the incomplete signatures to represent their names and that the petition was signed knowingly and voluntarily.

The Board accepted the petition and ordered a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, finding the incomplete signatures invalid.

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the College violated the College's Collective Bargaining Act by cancelling extension courses taught by full-time faculty during a legal strike, and by refusing to allow a specific faculty member to teach in the subsequent semester due to his union activities.

The Board found that the College's decisions to replace or cancel the suspended courses were made for bona fide operational reasons to minimize disruption, and were not tainted by anti-union animus.

The Board also concluded that the refusal to hire the specific faculty member was based on his unprofessional conduct and low course enrolment, rather than his union involvement.

The complaints were dismissed.

The applicant union brought a motion requesting the Board to direct the respondents to comply with the duty imposed by sections 1(5) and 63(13) of the Labour Relations Act to adduce all material facts regarding successor rights and related employer allegations.

The respondents had tendered witnesses who could only provide hearsay evidence regarding the formation of the related entities.

The Board held that the tendering of hearsay evidence did not comply with its previous direction or the statutory onus, as the applicant is entitled to cross-examine on the direct considerations involved in the transactions.

The Board directed the respondents to tender direct evidence concerning the events leading up to the formation of the entities.

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

The Board found that the applicant was a trade union and that the proposed bargaining unit of occasional teachers was appropriate.

The Board determined that occasional teachers were not covered by existing collective agreements with other unions, as they had been historically overlooked and fell under the Labour Relations Act by default.

Finding that more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the unit were members of the applicant, the Board granted the certificate.

The complainant union filed a section 89 complaint alleging that the employer's persistent failure to adhere to collective agreement restrictions on foremen performing bargaining unit work amounted to a violation of section 50 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer argued the issue was one of contract interpretation and requested deferral to arbitration.

The Board found that there was no broad repudiation of the collective agreement or the bargaining agent, and the issue was classically one for an arbitrator to decide based on the specific exceptions in the collective agreement.

The Board deferred the matter to arbitration and adjourned the complaint sine die for a period of one year.