F. W. Murray

The complainant trade unions filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging violations of sections 3, 15, 64, 66, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act, claiming the employer favoured a non-unionized plant to the detriment of unionized plants.

On a preliminary motion regarding procedure, the employer argued the reverse onus under section 89(5) only applied to sections 66 and 70, and thus the union should proceed first.

The Board held that section 89(5) applies to any substantive provision breached by employment-related discrimination, including section 64.

Given the integral nature of the allegations and the employer's knowledge of the facts, the Board directed the employer to proceed first on all allegations, including the section 15 claim.

The union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine whether certain individuals working for the respondent exercised managerial functions and were thus excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board found that the fixer-foremen did not exercise managerial responsibilities, as their direction of other employees was purely incidental to their primary concern of maintaining machines.

However, the Board concluded that the quality control supervisor did exercise managerial functions, noting her historical exclusion from the unit and her involvement in actions that could adversely impact fellow employees.

The complainants, former employees of Donline Haulage Inc., alleged that the respondent Teamsters Locals breached their duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

Following the acquisition of Donline's assets by Softley Cartage Limited, the complainants sought to have their seniority dovetailed with Softley's employees.

The respondent unions determined that the collective agreements did not support dovetailing and that Softley's employees had vested seniority rights.

The Board found that the unions' decision not to pursue the complainants' seniority claims was reasonable and legally justified.

Although the unions failed to communicate adequately with the complainants, this failure did not constitute a violation of section 68.

The complaint was dismissed.

During a protracted strike, the union filed unfair labour practice complaints against the employer companies and a security company, alleging the security company provided an agent provocateur.

The union and the employers reached a settlement and the union sought to withdraw its complaint against the employers, but proceed against the security company.

The security company argued that as an agent, releasing the principal released it, relying on the common law doctrine of joint tortfeasors.

The Board rejected the application of the joint tortfeasor doctrine to the Labour Relations Act, finding that the security company was a 'person acting on behalf of an employer' and thus independently subject to the Act's prohibitions.

The Board allowed the withdrawal against the employers and directed the complaint against the security company to proceed.

During an application for certification, a group of employees filed a petition opposing the union.

The union challenged the voluntariness of the petition, arguing that the main proponent was a lead hand who exercised managerial functions or was perceived as management.

The Board found that the lead hand possessed only minimal supervisory responsibilities and was not perceived as management by the employees.

The Board concluded that the petition was voluntary and directed the union to advise whether it wished to proceed with its section 8 charges or proceed to a representation vote.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of employees working at Thunder Bay International Airport.

The respondent employer objected, arguing the employees were security guards under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act and that the unit should not be confined to the airport.

The Board held that section 11 did not apply because the employees protected the airlines' property from hijackers, not in their capacity as employers.

The Board also found the single-location bargaining unit appropriate as there was no substantial interchange with other locations.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the respondent union violated the Labour Relations Act by intimidating and coercing employees during a strike vote and a ratification vote, and sought to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

The Board found no evidence of intimidation or coercion, noting that the union's timing of the votes to protect its bargaining rights was a reasonable business practice.

The Board dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint and subsequently dismissed the application for termination of bargaining rights as untimely due to the existence of a valid collective agreement.

The applicants, two of the three employees in the bargaining unit, applied under section 57(2) of the Labour Relations Act to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

A Board-appointed Vice-Chairman found that the application was voluntary and that the collective agreement had expired with no efforts made to negotiate a new one.

The Board adopted these findings, determined that not less than forty-five per cent of the employees had voluntarily signified they no longer wished to be represented by the union, and directed a representation vote by mailed ballot.

The Minister of Labour referred questions to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his authority to appoint a conciliation officer for Local 353 and the Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council.

Local 353, previously bargaining through the Council, sought to bargain separately with the employer and gave notice of its withdrawal from the Council's bargaining unit.

The Board found that the Council acted merely as an agent for Local 353, not as a certified council of trade unions, and that Local 353 had not abandoned its individual bargaining rights.

The Board concluded that Local 353 provided proper notice under the Labour Relations Act and the collective agreement, and therefore the Minister had the authority to appoint a conciliation officer for both Local 353 and the Council (for the remaining unions).

The union applied for certification of employees in the respondent's diagnostic services division.

A dispute arose over whether two employees who performed blood tests and electrocardiograms at a nursing home were 'hospital employees' under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The Board held that because the employer was not a hospital and the functions performed were not statutorily required of a nursing home, the employees were not 'hospital employees' within the meaning of the Act.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging that the employer's decision to lay off seven employees shortly after the union's organizing campaign was motivated by anti-union animus.

The employer contended the lay-offs were strictly due to a severe seasonal downturn in its aluminum extrusion business and the cancellation of major orders.

The Board found the employer's witnesses credible and supported by statistical evidence, concluding the lay-offs were motivated solely by bona fide business considerations.

The unfair labour practice complaint was dismissed, but the Board ordered a representation vote for the certification application.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the employer unlawfully interfered with its organizing campaign by soliciting grievances, providing additional help, and sending anti-union communications.

The Board found that the employer violated section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by soliciting grievances and conferring benefits (part-time help) to undermine the union.

However, the employer's written communications were deemed lawful free speech.

The Board declined to grant automatic certification under section 8, finding that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained after applying remedial measures, including a posting and union access to employees.

The application for certification was dismissed.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent hospital violated the statutory freeze under section 79 of the Labour Relations Act by withholding general wage increases from newly certified full-time and part-time nurses.

The Board found that the hospital had a clear historical pattern of granting general wage increases to all employees except those covered by a collective agreement.

By departing from this 'business as before' pattern and denying the increases to the nurses during the freeze period, the hospital violated section 79.

The Board ordered compensation with interest but declined to issue a posting order, finding the violation was technical and made in good faith.

The applicant employer sought a declaration terminating the respondent union's bargaining rights under section 59(2) of the Act, alleging the union failed to commence bargaining within sixty days of giving notice.

The Board found that while negotiations were delayed due to employee layoffs and scheduling difficulties, the union had not abandoned its bargaining rights and was actively preparing proposals.

The Board held that section 59 is not intended to allow employers to trigger representation votes simply because sixty days have elapsed, especially when employees had their own opportunity to file a representation application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union sought to certify a bargaining unit of registered nurses at the respondent's nursing home.

The respondent argued that all its nurses exercised managerial functions and were therefore excluded from collective bargaining under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board reviewed the duties of the nurses, including their supervisory, disciplinary, and evaluative roles over lesser-skilled staff.

The Board concluded that the nurses' functions were primarily professional and coordinating in nature, rather than managerial, as they lacked effective control over the employment status of other employees.

The Board found the nurses to be employees within the meaning of the Act and granted the certification.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union over two and a half years after she was discharged by her employer.

Following her discharge, the union declined to file a grievance, and the complainant pursued remedies against the employer through the Human Rights Commission and the courts.

The Board dismissed the complaint without inquiring into the merits, finding that the extreme delay prejudiced the union and that the complainant's pursuit of other remedies against the employer did not justify the delay in proceeding against the union.

The applicant union applied for certification for two bargaining units of the respondent's employees.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and determined that the two proposed bargaining units were appropriate.

A statement of desire objecting to the certification was received after the terminal date and was not supported by any appearances at the hearing, so it was not considered.

For the first bargaining unit, the union demonstrated 56.41% membership support.

The Board declined the respondent's request to direct a representation vote, noting that the union's support exceeded the 55% threshold and no special circumstances warranted a vote.

A certificate was issued for the first unit.

The application for the second unit was dismissed as the union had less than 45% support.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint under section 78 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, alleging that the grievor was dealt with contrary to section 76.

The respondents raised preliminary matters, arguing that the Board should defer to grievance arbitration.

The Board applied its established principles for deferral, noting the mature collective bargaining relationship and that the dispute was primarily contractual in nature.

The Board deferred to the arbitration process and adjourned the complaint sine die for up to one year, retaining jurisdiction to ensure the arbitration outcome is fair and not repugnant to the Act.

The applicants, a group of employees who opted out of a newly negotiated bargaining unit accretion, applied under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act to terminate the union's bargaining rights for the added classifications.

The union and the employer had negotiated an 'opt-in' formula where only employees who explicitly chose union representation were added to the unit.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicants lacked status to bring the challenge because, having opted out, they were not 'employees in the bargaining unit' as required by section 60.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine whether certain persons were employees.

The respondent hospital objected, arguing that the parties had just concluded a new collective agreement without the union reserving the issue of employee status.

The Board applied its policy that a party cannot unilaterally withdraw from an agreement on employment status absent a material change in duties.

Because the union did not reserve its right prior to the new agreement, the Board limited the appointment of a Board Officer to inquiring only into material changes in duties and responsibilities since the new agreement was entered into.