F. W. Murray

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The parties agreed on the general description of the bargaining unit but disputed the inclusion of four individuals whom the respondent claimed exercised managerial functions.

The applicant requested the Board to receive evidence directly to expedite the matter, citing a recent decision.

The Board declined to depart from its normal practice and appointed a Board Officer to inquire into the disputed individuals' duties.

As the applicant's right to certification was not affected by the ultimate composition of the unit, the Board granted interim certification pending final resolution.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit consisting of occasional teachers employed in the respondent's six French language secondary schools.

The respondent argued that the unit should include all occasional teachers across all its secondary schools to avoid fragmentation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that the occasional teachers in the French language schools shared a distinct and definable community of interest, making the proposed subdivision an appropriate bargaining unit.

A Board Officer was appointed to inquire into the employee list to determine the exact composition of the bargaining unit.

The applicants, two secretaries employed by the Niagara South Board of Education, applied under section 47 of the Labour Relations Act for an exemption from paying union dues to the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) based on their religious convictions.

They objected to the union's affiliation with the Ontario Federation of Labour's pro-choice resolution on abortion, the union's constitutional defence of the right to strike, and the lack of reference to God in the union's oath.

The Board applied the Wybenga test and found that the applicants' beliefs were sincerely held, religious in nature, and the actual cause of their objection to paying dues.

The Board granted the applications, ordering that the dues be remitted to a mutually agreed charitable organization.

One Board member dissented, arguing that objections to non-collective bargaining issues like abortion resolutions should not justify a total exemption from dues.

The complainant union alleged that the grievor was discharged from her employment as a waitress at a Swiss Chalet restaurant because of her support for the union, contrary to section 66 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer contended that the grievor was a probationary employee who was discharged for complaining about cleaning duties and interfering with other employees' work.

The Board found that the employer's evidence regarding the reasons for discharge was contradictory and lacked credibility.

Applying the reverse onus under section 89(5) of the Act, the Board concluded that the employer failed to prove that the discharge was not tainted by anti-union animus.

The Board ordered the grievor reinstated with compensation.

The applicant union filed an application for certification to displace the intervener union.

The intervener requested that the Board dismiss the application under section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act because a previous application by the applicant had been dismissed.

The Board noted that the previous application was dismissed due to a technical defect—the failure to file a Form 9 declaration—and that no assessment of employee wishes had occurred.

Balancing the competing interests, the Board declined to impose a bar and dismissed the intervener's motion.

The applicant union applied for certification to displace an incumbent union.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing certification long after the terminal date, requesting an extension due to alleged lack of information and delay in the proceedings.

The Board refused to extend the terminal date, emphasizing the need for a fixed point in time to ascertain employee wishes and noting that mere passage of time or change of heart does not justify an extension.

Furthermore, because the incumbent union had abandoned its bargaining rights, the Board declined to order a representation vote and granted outright certification based on the applicant's membership evidence.

In a grievance referral to arbitration, the applicant union requested the Board to direct the respondents' principal to comply with a summons to witness.

The respondents demanded particulars of the alleged violations before complying.

The Board held that the grievance against Penka Carpentry Limited was sufficiently particularized, as it alleged all work performed by Penka violated the collective agreement.

However, for Karl Thier Construction Limited, the union was required to particularize claims outside the specific time and location already identified, as it had a prior bargaining relationship with that entity.

The matter was adjourned.

The applicant union applied for certification.

During the hearing, it was revealed that the union's business agent had signed the receipt portion of two membership cards despite not being the actual collector of the initiation fees, and subsequently signed a Form 9 Declaration without noting any exceptions.

The Board found that the union representative had knowingly made a false representation to the Board.

Given the strict standards for membership evidence and the necessity of complete disclosure on Form 9, the Board declined to give any weight to the membership evidence and dismissed the application.

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

An employees' association sought to intervene but failed to provide written evidence that employees had applied for membership, leading the Board to deny it status.

The respondent employer argued the application should be barred because the applicant had recently withdrawn a similar application.

The Board declined to impose a time bar, finding no evidence that the withdrawal was an attempt to avoid a representation vote defeat.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit and referred the matter to a Board Officer to inquire into the list and composition of the unit.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

Counsel for a group of employees and counsel for the respondent employer requested a hearing prior to the vote, alleging issues with the union's membership evidence, including unreturned cards from a previous dismissed application.

The Board declined to schedule a hearing prior to the vote, holding that issues regarding the adequacy and integrity of membership evidence should be dealt with at a hearing after the pre-hearing vote is conducted, as per the statutory scheme.

The Board directed the taking of a pre-hearing representation vote and ordered the ballot box sealed.

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation (OSSTF) applied for certification to represent occasional teachers employed by the respondent board of education.

The respondent and the intervener union argued that OSSTF was not a trade union under the Labour Relations Act because its membership included principals and vice-principals who exercised managerial functions.

The Board held that OSSTF is a trade union, finding that the inclusion of managerial members does not disqualify an organization from being a trade union, especially given the statutory inclusion of principals in teacher bargaining units under other legislation.

The Board also established a new test for determining the composition of the bargaining unit for occasional teachers, rejecting the traditional 30/30-day rule in favour of a broader test including those actively at work on the application date or who had worked at least one day in the preceding twelve months.

Finally, the Board directed the employer to provide a list of employee names and addresses to facilitate a fair representation vote.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Karl Thier Construction Limited and Penka Carpentry Limited be treated as one employer.

Karl Thier Construction, bound by a collective agreement with the union, ceased receiving contracts from a major developer due to its union affiliation.

The owner, Karl Thier, subsequently arranged for his uncle to incorporate Penka Carpentry Limited to obtain contracts from the same developer, with Thier managing the operations.

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

The Board exercised its discretion to declare them a single employer to protect the union's bargaining rights, finding that Penka was formed to circumvent Karl Thier Construction's collective bargaining obligations.

The complainant national union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the respondent employer contravened section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to bargain exclusively with a trustee appointed by the national union.

The local union had voted to disaffiliate and challenged the trusteeship's validity.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding the employer was willing to bargain in good faith but was thwarted by the internal union dispute over bargaining rights, and was not using the dispute as a pretext to avoid its obligations.

The applicant, an individual employee, filed an application for a declaration of an unlawful lockout against the respondent employer, alleging he was locked out after being absent due to a workplace injury.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application without a hearing.

The Board held that under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act, an individual does not have standing to apply for a declaration of an unlawful lockout.

Furthermore, the Board found that the applicant's allegations related to a discharge rather than a lockout as defined in the Act, and thus failed to make out a prima facie case.

The complainant trade union alleged that the respondent employer violated the statutory freeze period under section 79(2) and the prohibition against union interference under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by laying off several employees shortly after an application for certification was filed.

The Board found that the layoffs of sales staff and receiving employees were part of a pre-existing program or a continuation of business as usual, and thus did not violate the freeze.

However, the layoffs of cleaning and alterations staff, which resulted from contracting out and centralization decisions made after the freeze began, constituted an unlawful alteration of employee privileges.

The section 64 complaint was dismissed as the layoffs were motivated by bona fide business reasons.

The applicant union filed an application asserting that a sale of a business occurred between Daal Specialties and the respondent, Collingwood Fabrics Inc. The respondent acknowledged the sale.

However, a group of employees filed a petition seeking to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

The Board held that under section 63(10) of the Labour Relations Act, a union's bargaining rights are protected for one year following notice to bargain to a successor employer.

Consequently, the employee petition for termination was deemed untimely and the Board declined to inquire into it.

A dissenting member would have treated the petition as timely.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the employer terminated two employees and held a captive audience meeting to thwart an organizing campaign.

The Board found the employer's explanation of a work shortage lacked credibility and concluded the terminations and the meeting, which included threats to job security and promises of benefits, violated the Labour Relations Act.

Finding that the employer's substantial misconduct made it unlikely the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained in a representation vote, and that the union had adequate membership support, the Board certified the union under section 8 and ordered reinstatement and compensation for the terminated employees.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The respondent employer challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing its labour relations fell under federal jurisdiction because it employed aircraft in its business.

The respondent also requested a hearing prior to the vote to address jurisdiction, the bargaining unit scope, and vote arrangements for employees on overseas assignments.

The Board dismissed the request for a pre-vote hearing, noting that the purpose of a pre-hearing vote is expedition and that jurisdictional issues are properly addressed at a hearing after the vote is conducted.

The Board directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be taken and the ballot box sealed pending further order.

During the hearing of consolidated complaints, the complainants sought to adduce certain evidence in reply to impugn the credibility of the respondents' witnesses and to show that a respondent offered positions in exchange for terminating the case.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that the complainants could not split their case by calling evidence in reply that should have been called in chief or put to the witnesses in cross-examination under the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

The Board also excluded evidence of settlement efforts, finding it irrelevant to the merits of the complaints.

The applicant employer sought to reopen a settlement and vary a collective agreement under section 106 of the Labour Relations Act.

The parties had recently negotiated a compromise regarding the inclusion of home care co-ordinators in the bargaining unit, maintaining the status quo for existing employees but including new hires.

The employer conceded that the co-ordinators were employees and did not exercise managerial functions.

The Board dismissed the application, finding no basis under section 106 to interfere with a sensible settlement arrived at by both parties acting in good faith, noting that once a collective agreement is signed, any initial certificate is spent.