F. W. Murray

The employer applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether four newly-created positions were 'employees' for the purposes of the Act.

The union argued the positions fell within the scope of the collective agreement.

The Board examined the duties and responsibilities of the Operations Manager, Supply and Services Supervisor, Senior Property Standards Officer and Property Manager, and Operations Technologist.

The Board found that all four individuals exercised managerial functions, including supervising staff, authorizing time off, and making effective recommendations.

Consequently, the Board held that none of the four individuals were 'employees' within the meaning of the Act.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act regarding work performed by the respondent employer.

The employer acknowledged being bound by the collective agreement but disputed the amount of damages, having reneged on a prior settlement.

Due to the employer's failure to keep proper payroll records, the Board accepted the union's credible estimate of the time required for the job, minus the time attributed to painting work which was not proven to be a violation.

The Board ordered the employer to pay $2,533.12 in damages.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging he was discharged for refusing unsafe work under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

He experienced allergic reactions when using a grinder.

The Board dismissed the complaint on a preliminary basis, finding the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case.

The work place did not present a general hazard, the applicant's reaction was exceptional, and he failed to pursue his request for a face mask before his termination.

The union alleged the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by refusing to implement a first collective agreement awarded by a board of arbitration.

The employer argued the agreement was a nullity due to the Inflation Restraint Act.

The Board held that while the compensation plan within the agreement was of no effect under the Inflation Restraint Act, the remainder of the collective agreement remained valid and binding.

The Board directed the employer to implement the non-compensation provisions of the agreement.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of a business occurred under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act when a receiver entered into an interim management agreement with a numbered company to operate the insolvent predecessor's trucking business pending a final sale.

The numbered company applied the collective agreement of a competing union to the employees.

The Board distinguished prior cases where a receiver operated a business solely as agent for the debtor, finding that the numbered company operated the business for its own profit subject to a fixed monthly fee.

The Board declared that a sale of a business had taken place, entitling the applicant to give notice to bargain, and amended the competing union's collective agreement to exclude the predecessor's business.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent had or would shortly acquire the business of a nursing home.

The respondent had entered into an agreement to purchase the nursing home licence and transfer residents to a new facility.

The Board declined to express a preliminary opinion on the hypothetical facts, noting the transaction had not yet closed and the licence had not been formally acquired.

The application was dismissed as premature, without prejudice to bringing a fresh application once the transaction was completed.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent office and clerical employees of the respondent.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act and determined the appropriate bargaining unit.

A central issue was the validity of the membership evidence, as the application cards named the parent international union rather than the specific local, though the attached receipts referenced the local.

Distinguishing a previous decision, the Board accepted the membership evidence, finding that the employees knew they were signifying the applicant local as their exclusive bargaining agent.

The Board also verified the authenticity of challenged signatures.

Having found that more than 55% of the employees in the unit were members, the Board granted the application and issued a certificate.

The complainant trade union alleged that the respondent security company, acting on behalf of the struck employer, committed unfair labour practices by planting an undercover investigator within the bargaining unit during a lengthy strike.

The investigator posed as a striking employee, reported to the employer on union bargaining strategy and internal dissension, fostered dissent among the strikers, and engaged in unlawful acts on the picket line.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the respondent's actions constituted a flagrant violation of section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by interfering with the administration of the trade union and the representation of employees.

The Board held that infiltrating a trade union during or in anticipation of a strike is a per se violation of the Act.

The Board ordered the respondent to compensate the union for half of the wages and strike pay lost due to the five-week prolongation of the strike caused by its actions, and to provide written notice of its violation to any trade union it is retained to act against in the future.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The employer requested that the geographic scope of the bargaining unit be limited to the City of Cornwall, where the existing plant was located.

The union requested a broader unit encompassing the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, as the employer was constructing two new plants outside the municipal boundaries and intended to relocate there.

The Board held that where a relocation is intended at the time of certification and the new site is within the labour market of the existing site, the bargaining unit should embrace the planned move.

The Board found the broader unit appropriate and, being satisfied that more than 55 percent of the employees were members of the trade union, issued a certificate.

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

At the hearing, the respondent failed to produce subpoenaed documents, forcing an adjournment.

The applicant requested that the Board assess 'costs of the day' against the respondent.

The Board reviewed its jurisprudence and concluded that it lacks the statutory authority to award costs as a punitive measure in section 124 proceedings, noting that costs are generally not awarded in arbitration unless explicitly provided for.

The request for costs was denied.

The complainant union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that employees were laid off or discharged for union activity.

The respondent employer argued that it should not be required to proceed first with its evidence, asserting that the reverse onus provision in section 89(5) of the Labour Relations Act violates the presumption of innocence under section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Board rejected this argument, reaffirming its previous jurisprudence that section 89 is remedial and civil in nature, not penal or quasi-criminal.

The Board directed the respondent to proceed first with its evidence in accordance with normal practice.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and submitted confirmation documents as evidence of membership.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the documents did not indicate that the signatories had paid at least one dollar in initiation fees or monthly dues, as required by section 1(1)(l) of the Labour Relations Act.

Consequently, the Board determined that there was insufficient evidence of membership and dismissed the application.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer discharged the grievor due to anti-union animus, contrary to section 66(a) of the Labour Relations Act.

The grievor, who was the sole employee responsible for the union's organizing drive, walked off her shift after complaining that her section of the restaurant was unfairly overloaded.

The employer maintained that her departure constituted a resignation and refused to allow her to return to work.

The Board found that the employer was unaware of the grievor's union activities at the time of her discharge and that the decision was based entirely on her conduct of leaving customers unattended.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant employer applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to have its Residence Supervisors exempted from the bargaining unit, a matter previously decided against the employer in 1981.

The Board treated the application as a request for reconsideration and dismissed it, noting that no new evidence or material changes in duties were presented.

The Board also declined to treat the matter as a fresh application under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act, as the parties were in the middle of a collective agreement term and the employer had not reserved the right to bring a subsequent application.

The respondent employer requested that the Board extend the time for representations or hold an advance poll because an employee was on vacation during the representation vote.

The Board held that the vote should stand, noting that the employer had agreed to the vote date and failed to raise the issue promptly or on the day of the vote.

As more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant union, the Board issued a certificate.

The applicant union requested the appointment of a Labour Relations Officer under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act to investigate whether certain individuals performing alleged bargaining unit work were employees or exercised managerial functions.

The Board declined to appoint an officer at this stage, noting that the dispute might primarily involve the interpretation of the collective agreement rather than statutory employee status.

The Board directed the parties to provide further representations clarifying the nature of their dispute and the duties of the individuals in question.

The applicant union applied for certification of a unit of part-time office and clerical employees at the respondent hospital.

The parties disputed the geographic scope of the bargaining unit.

The respondent sought to restrict the unit to the municipality of Belleville, while the applicant sought a unit without geographic restriction, mirroring the existing full-time unit.

The Board applied its policy of mirroring part-time units with full-time units to avoid a multiplicity of bargaining units.

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

Dissenting opinion of Board Member F. W. Murray regarding an application for certification.

The dissenting member would have found that the persons subject to the application are not employees within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, as the rehabilitative aspect of their employment is paramount and overrides the normal trappings of an employment relationship.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent individuals working in the respondent municipality's Helping Hands program.

The respondent argued that the individuals were not employees but participants in a rehabilitation program designed to simulate employment.

The Board found that despite the rehabilitative aspects of the program, the participants worked for wages, were subject to direction and supervision, and had standard deductions taken from their pay.

The Board concluded that the participants were employees within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act and granted the application for certification.

The employers requested the Minister of Labour to appoint a conciliation officer, naming Local 432 as the trade union.

The union objected, asserting that the Ontario Projectionists' Association had been designated as its agent for collective bargaining and had acquired the rights of Local 432.

The Minister referred the question of his authority to appoint a conciliation officer to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board found that the Association is not a trade union at common law or under the Labour Relations Act, but rather an uncertified council of trade unions.

As such, it can only act as an agent for Local 432, which retains the formal bargaining rights.

The Board concluded that the Minister has the authority to appoint a conciliation officer naming Local 432.