F. W. Murray

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

The Board assessed whether the petitions signed by employees represented their voluntary wishes.

The Board found that the active involvement of the general manager's wife in the origination and circulation of the petitions would have led employees to reasonably perceive that management had a vested interest in the termination of bargaining rights and would be aware of who signed.

Consequently, the Board concluded the petitions were not voluntary and dismissed the application.

The applicant union sought certification to represent employees of the respondent.

The parties disagreed on the status of six individuals who were fully subsidized by government make-work programs (the Futures Program and a municipal welfare program).

The respondent argued these individuals were not its employees because they were funded and partially controlled by external agencies.

Applying the York Condominium criteria, the Board found that the respondent exercised day-to-day control, assigned work, and benefited from their labour.

The Board concluded that the six individuals were employees of the respondent for the purposes of the Labour Relations Act and included them in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union filed four applications for certification.

A threshold issue was whether the applicant was a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1)(p) of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondents argued that the applicant was not a trade union because its constitution allowed vessel owners (alleged to be management) to join, and because some members were not employees.

The Board rejected these arguments, holding that the phrase 'organization of employees' does not mean 'organization of employees only', and that the presence of managerial members does not automatically preclude trade union status.

The Board found that the applicant had followed the necessary steps to form a trade union and declared it to be a trade union under the Act.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to provide a physical copy of the Master Plan detailing welfare benefits under the collective agreement.

The employer argued that providing access to the document at its head office and answering questions by phone was sufficient.

The Board held that the refusal to provide a copy interfered with the union's ability to represent its members and fulfill its duty of fair representation under section 68.

The Board also declined to defer the matter to arbitration, noting that the complaint raised a novel issue regarding statutory rights under section 64.

The employer was directed to provide the union with a copy of the Master Plan.

The complainant trade union alleged that the employer committed unfair labour practices during collective bargaining by refusing to disclose a salary survey, refusing to provide particulars of existing salaries and proposed adjustments, communicating directly with employees to disparage the union, and unilaterally implementing salary adjustments during the statutory freeze period.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer violated sections 15, 64, 67, and 79 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the employer to cease and desist, bargain in good faith, produce the salary survey, compensate the union and employees for losses, and post a notice of its violations.

The applicant referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent raised preliminary objections, arguing that the grievance was not delivered prior to the referral and that the applicant failed to follow the grievance procedure in the collective agreement.

The Board dismissed both objections, finding that the grievance was presumed delivered by mail under section 113(1) of the Act and that section 124 creates a distinct dispute resolution process separate from the collective agreement.

The union applied for certification.

The employer argued that membership evidence collected by an employee, Mr. Pyle, should be discounted because he threatened other employees with job loss if they did not sign union cards.

The Board found that Mr. Pyle did make such threats.

As a result, the Board declined to give full weight to the membership evidence and ordered a representation vote to ascertain the true wishes of the employees.

One Board member dissented, arguing that employers should not be permitted to participate in certification hearings regarding membership evidence.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The respondent employer argued that the two sheet metal workers referred to it by the union's hiring hall were independent contractors, not employees, due to the transitory nature of their engagement.

The Board held that the workers were employees, noting that short-term hiring hall referrals are characteristic of employment relationships in the construction industry.

The Board granted the application for certification.

The applicant union referred two grievances to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer objected to the Board's jurisdiction, arguing it did not operate a business in the construction industry.

The respondent's business involved fabricating and setting up temporary display structures for shows and exhibitions.

The Board applied the fixture versus chattel distinction and found that the temporary, moveable display structures were chattels rather than fixtures or real property.

Consequently, the Board held that the respondent was not an employer in the construction industry and dismissed the applications for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application for certification at the opening of the hearing due to potential defects in membership cards and equivocal employee support.

The respondent employer requested that the Board dismiss the application and impose a ten-month bar on future applications pursuant to section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act, alleging improprieties in the collection of membership evidence.

The Board declined to conduct an inquiry into the allegations or impose a bar, noting that a bar is not intended as a penalty for improper conduct but rather to restore equilibrium to labour relations.

The application was dismissed without a bar.

The applicant trade union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that three printing companies should be treated as a single employer.

The original company, Hunter Printing, experienced financial difficulties and eventually ceased operations, laying off its employees.

The owner subsequently commenced operations through two new corporate entities, utilizing the same equipment and performing similar work.

The Board found that the companies carried on associated or related businesses under common control and direction.

The Board exercised its discretion to make a single employer declaration, ensuring the union's bargaining rights continued with respect to the new entities, despite there currently being no employees in the bargaining unit.

The complainants alleged that the respondent union and its business manager contravened section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by acting arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith in the administration of the union's hiring hall.

The Board found that the union's hiring hall records were unreliable and that the business manager had used his control over the hiring hall to penalize political rivals by denying them job opportunities.

The Board concluded that the union contravened section 69 in respect of 23 referrals challenged by one complainant and 3 referrals challenged by the other, and ordered the union to compensate them for lost wages and benefits.

The Board declined to award costs.

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

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application as untimely, arguing that the initial application form failed to describe the bargaining unit and was only corrected after the open period had expired.

The Board dismissed the union's motion, finding that the application, when read with its accompanying documents, clearly intended to cover all employees for whom the union held bargaining rights.

The Board emphasized substance over form, noting that the application was filed in a timely manner and the defect in form did not invalidate it.

The Board extended the terminal date to allow for proper notice to be served regarding both the full-time and part-time bargaining units.

The applicant union sought certification for the respondent's office support staff.

A representation vote was held based on an agreed-upon voters' list, and all ballots were cast in favour of the applicant.

After the vote, the respondent sought to challenge the eligibility of one of the voters, claiming she should be excluded as a confidential employee.

The Board held that the respondent could not resile from its earlier agreement on the voters' list and that any challenge to voter eligibility had to be raised in a timely fashion at the time of the vote.

The Board certified the applicant.

The union was certified as the bargaining agent for employees of the respondent in October 1984.

In September 1985, the union wrote to the Board stating it no longer enjoyed the support of the employees and sought a declaration terminating its bargaining rights.

The Board treated the letter as a request for reconsideration and revocation of the certificate.

Before deciding, the Board directed the employer to post the decision and invited representations from the employer and affected employees by October 30, 1985, indicating that if no opposition is received, the Board may grant the union's request without a hearing.

The applicant, a full-time employee, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights for both full-time and part-time bargaining units.

The union argued the applicant lacked standing for the part-time unit and exercised managerial functions.

The Board held that employees in both units who signed the petition were considered applicants, giving standing for both units.

The Board also found the applicant was an assistant manager who did not exercise managerial functions.

Finding the petition voluntary, the Board directed a representation vote for both bargaining units.

The applicant union brought an application under section 63 and/or section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that a lease with an option to purchase a closed brick and tile manufacturing facility constituted a sale of a business from the former owners to the new operators.

The Board found that no business was sold, as the facility had been closed for years, required significant modifications, and no goodwill or customer lists were transferred.

The section 63 application was dismissed, and consequently, a related termination application was also dismissed.

The applicant union applied under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act alleging a sale of a business or related employer status between Port Weller Dry Docks and Hamilton Marine.

The respondent and intervener raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked constitutional jurisdiction because Hamilton Marine's business of performing running repairs on ships fell under federal jurisdiction.

The Board found that Hamilton Marine's operations were an essential component of navigation and shipping, and that its business extended beyond the limits of Ontario.

Consequently, the Board held that the labour relations of Hamilton Marine's employees were governed by the Canada Labour Code, not provincial legislation, and terminated the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant employer requested the Board to determine whether a newly created 'Dental Assistant Supervisor' position is an 'employee' under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent union argued the matter should be deferred to arbitration.

The Board noted its exclusive jurisdiction to determine employee status under the Act, which may resolve the issue without arbitration.

The Board appointed an Officer to inquire into the duties and responsibilities of the new position.

During a hearing for an unfair labour practice complaint, the complainant union requested an order directing the respondent employer to produce a salary survey and other documents related to unilateral salary adjustments.

The employer argued the survey was irrelevant and its production would grant the ultimate remedy sought in the complaint.

The Board held it had jurisdiction to order production of documents relevant to the issues, finding the survey's existence and content relevant to the employer's motivation.

The Board ordered production of the survey and documents the employer intended to rely on, noting that the union was bound by an implied undertaking not to use the documents for collateral purposes such as collective bargaining.