F. W. Murray

The applicant employee applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union had been certified over two years prior but failed to reach a collective agreement and had not contacted the employer or employees for almost a year.

Despite the union's apparent abandonment of the bargaining unit, the union resisted the application on the technical ground that the parties were still in conciliation.

The Board dismissed the application as premature under section 61(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, noting that an application for termination cannot be made until thirty days after the Minister releases a "no-board" report.

A concurring opinion urged the union to surrender its certificate given its failure to represent the employees.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a comprehensive settlement.

The Board accepted the parties' agreement to treat the application as a pre-hearing application for certification and directed that a representation vote be taken among the employees in the agreed voting constituency.

The unfair labour practice complaint and the request for certification under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act were withdrawn.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of the respondent's employees.

The respondent requested a stay of proceedings pending an application for judicial review, which the Board denied.

The parties disputed the status of four individuals who were employed as students during the summer but had requested to continue working part-time during the school year.

The Board held that employee status is determined as of the application date.

Since the four individuals were 'students employed during the school vacation period' on the application date, they were excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board found that more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant and issued a certificate.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent full-time and part-time employees of the respondent hotel.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit descriptions except for the inclusion of front desk staff.

The union argued that front desk staff lacked a community of interest with the service employees and should be excluded.

The respondent and objecting employees argued for their inclusion to avoid undue fragmentation.

The Board held that the front desk staff's clerical and administrative duties, along with their physical separation, demonstrated a lack of community of interest with the service unit.

The Board excluded the front desk staff from the bargaining units, with one member dissenting on the basis of undue fragmentation.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer breached section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to bargain in good faith for a first collective agreement at its Cambridge branch.

The employer insisted on terms similar to an existing agreement at another branch, which largely mirrored its corporate-wide policies for non-unionized employees, and refused to make significant concessions.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, holding that the employer's conduct amounted to lawful hard bargaining in pursuit of its own self-interest and legitimate business objectives, rather than a refusal to recognize the union or conclude an agreement.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application for certification prior to a meeting with a Labour Relations Officer, having realized it lacked the requisite 35% membership support for a pre-hearing representation vote.

The respondent employer objected to the withdrawal and requested the dismissal of the application with a 10-month bar on future applications.

The Board noted that this was the third unsuccessful application within six months, which had kept the employer bound by statutory freeze provisions and caused unrest among employees.

The Board exercised its discretion to impose a 4-month bar on subsequent applications.

The applicant hospital applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether 'nurse clinicians' exercise managerial functions under section 1(3)(b) and should be excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board reviewed the duties of nurse clinicians, which primarily involved instruction, orientation, and professional evaluation, and concluded that these functions were not managerial in character.

The Board held that the nurse clinicians are employees within the meaning of the Act and are not excluded from collective bargaining.

The applicant union sought to terminate the bargaining rights of the incumbent union and apply for certification to represent employees at food-service outlets at Pearson International Airport.

The incumbent union had entered into voluntary recognition agreements with a new concession operator, which were ratified by the employees.

The applicant argued these agreements should be set aside under section 60(1) and section 46(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board dismissed the applications, finding that the employees had freely ratified the agreements and that the incumbent union had established it represented a majority of the employees at the time the agreements were entered into.

The applicant union sought to terminate the bargaining rights of the incumbent union, Local 1000A, and to certify itself as the bargaining agent for employees of a food-service contractor at Pearson International Airport.

The incumbent union had negotiated a new collective agreement with the successor employer, York County Foods, which was ratified by the employees.

The applicant argued the agreement should be set aside under section 60(1) of the Labour Relations Act because it contained a compulsory membership clause and the union had not established majority support.

The Board dismissed the applications, finding that the incumbent union had fairly established its majority support and that the employees had freely ratified the agreement.

During an unfair labour practice complaint regarding a union hiring hall, the complainants sought to introduce a transcript of evidence given by the respondent in prior criminal proceedings.

The respondents objected, arguing the transcript was inadmissible and relying on section 13 of the Charter.

The Board ruled the transcript admissible under its broad evidentiary powers, finding that section 13 of the Charter does not apply to quasi-civil, compensatory proceedings before the Board.

The Board also denied the complainants' request for costs.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the respondent employer's failure to remit welfare plan contributions and union dues in a timely manner.

The Board previously directed payment of the outstanding principal amounts but reserved on the enforceability of the collective agreement's penalty provisions, which imposed percentage charges and a flat fee for late payments and arbitration.

The Board held that the provisions were enforceable as genuine pre-estimates of liquidated damages rather than unenforceable penalties, noting the difficulty of quantifying intangible damages to labour-management harmony and the union's costs of collection and arbitration.

The employer was ordered to pay the additional amounts.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of carpenters and carpenters' apprentices in the construction industry.

The respondent employer argued the unit should be restricted to 'registered' apprentices, which the Board rejected.

The parties also disputed whether two employees, Lauzon and Campbell, were performing carpentry work on the application date.

The Board found that Lauzon was working as a carpenter and included him in the unit, but concluded that Campbell was working as a carpenter's helper and excluded him.

Finding that the union had between 45 and 55 percent membership support in the four-employee unit, the Board directed a representation vote.

The complainants sought to adduce evidence that the respondent union's hiring hall records had been altered, in order to undermine the credibility of the records filed with the Board.

The respondents objected on the basis that the complainants failed to comply with the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Board's Rules of Procedure regarding timely particularization.

The Board exercised its discretion to allow the evidence to be adduced, subject to terms including an adjournment for the respondents to prepare for cross-examination and a requirement that the complainants produce previous witnesses for cross-examination.

During a hearing into complaints of arbitrary and discriminatory hiring hall referrals, the complainants sought leave to cross-examine their own witness.

They argued she was a hostile witness and relied on section 23 of the Evidence Act due to alleged inconsistencies between her examination-in-chief and cross-examination.

The Board denied the request, finding no factual or legal basis to declare the witness hostile.

The Board also held that section 23 of the Evidence Act was inapplicable because the alleged inconsistent statements were made during the witness's present testimony before the Board, not 'at some other time' as required by the statute.

The applicant union applied for certification for two bargaining units of the respondent's employees shortly after a related union lost a representation vote for an all-employee unit.

The respondent argued the Board should refuse to entertain the new applications under section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that the two unions have separate and distinct status under the Act, and the bar imposed on the first union did not apply to the applicant.

However, the Board appointed an officer to inquire into the appropriateness of the smaller bargaining units sought by the applicant.

The applicant union sought leave to withdraw its application for certification.

The respondent employer requested that the application be dismissed and a one-year bar be imposed on subsequent applications, citing two previous unsuccessful applications.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board noted that the first application involved a small maintenance unit, while the current and immediately preceding applications involved a much larger all-employee unit.

The Board found that the applications did not pertain to the same employee group to a degree that would cause sufficient unrest to warrant a bar.

The Board dismissed the application but declined to impose a bar on future applications.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection that the applicant was not bound to a collective agreement with it.

The Board found that the employer was bound to a collective agreement with Local 1089, not the applicant Local 1059.

The Board held that the applicant had no jurisdiction to refer the grievance because it was not a party to the collective agreement.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant union sought consent to institute a prosecution against the employer for alleged violations of section 75(1) of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act.

The union alleged that the employer interfered with its representation rights by restructuring an Academic Committee to include bargainable issues and by communicating directly with faculty members.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding no prima facie case of interference.

The Board held that the committee's recommendatory nature and the employer's communications fell within the scope of management functions and protected employer free speech, respectively.

The complainant union alleged that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by contracting out cleaning work shortly after certification and during collective bargaining.

The union argued this was motivated by anti-union animus and that the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith by tabling wage rates for cleaners while intending to contract out the work.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer's decision was part of a broader operational review commenced before the union's arrival and was motivated by substantial cost savings.

The Board also held that the employer satisfied its duty to disclose by providing written notice of its intention to contract out prior to bargaining.

The applicant union requested that the Board issue arrest warrants for four individuals who failed to attend a hearing after being served with a summons to witness.

The Board found that the individuals were provided with cheques for their conduct money rather than cash.

Noting the practical difficulties associated with cashing cheques, the Board held that a witness is entitled to actual receipt of conduct money in cash prior to being required to attend.

The Board declined to issue the arrest warrants.