F. W. Murray

The complainant filed a complaint under section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging twenty instances of rights violations by the respondent employer.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board reviewed the allegations, noting that only two related to the Act, including a work refusal due to dust which was resolved by a joint health and safety committee inspection.

The Board found no substantial harm or valid reprisal in the remaining allegations and dismissed the complaint.

The union brought applications under sections 1(4), 63, and 124 of the Labour Relations Act against George Hamers Limited and L & M Plumbing & Heating.

The Board dismissed the section 1(4) application, finding that L & M was merely a division of George Hamers Limited and not a separate legal entity.

The section 63 application was also dismissed as no collective agreement was in force when the assets were acquired in 1967.

However, the Board upheld the section 124 grievance, finding that George Hamers Limited violated the collective agreement by assigning bargaining unit work to a non-union employee in its L & M division.

The union was awarded damages.

The complainants, a group of employees, alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation under the Labour Relations Act by executing a collective agreement on terms that a narrow majority of the bargaining unit had rejected in a ratification vote.

The union had accepted the employer's final offer because it lacked the bargaining strength to negotiate better terms, the employees were unwilling to strike, and the union feared losing its bargaining rights entirely.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union's decision was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The Board held that the Act does not strictly bind a union to the results of a discretionary ratification vote, and the union reasonably weighed the collective bargaining realities in deciding to accept the mediocre agreement rather than abandon the unit.

The applicant union sought certification for a single bargaining unit comprising employees at three of the respondent's plants.

The respondent argued that three separate single-plant units were appropriate.

Applying the Usarco criteria, the Board considered the community of interest, centralization of managerial authority, economic factors, and source of work.

The Board found that the lack of employee interchange, the identical nature of the work, and the considerable autonomy of the individual plant managers tilted the balance in favour of three separate units.

The application was dismissed with respect to one unit due to insufficient membership support, and the ballots for the other two units were ordered to be counted.

The union applied for certification for employees at a single K Mart department store in Metropolitan Toronto.

The employer argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should encompass all four of its stores in the municipality, relying on the Board's general practice for retail stores.

The Board found that the single store unit was appropriate, noting that local management controlled day-to-day employment relations, there was little interchange of employees between stores, and the union had organized on a single store basis.

The Board emphasized that requiring a municipal-wide unit would effectively impede the employees' access to collective bargaining.

Certificates were issued for the full-time and part-time units at the single store.

The intervener trade union objected to the results of a representation vote, alleging that an employee supporting the applicant union violated the silent period by attempting to persuade other employees at a social event.

The Board dismissed the objection, finding that a conversation between employees at an unconnected social event did not constitute 'campaigning' or an organized attempt to persuade.

A certificate was issued to the applicant union.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the Perley Hospital unlawfully locked out 38 employees and discharged 6 part-time employees as a reprisal for their participation in an unlawful strike.

The Hospital argued that the failure to recall the employees was due to a decision to upgrade the quality of its nursing staff by hiring more registered nurses and registered nurse's aides, and that the part-time employees were discharged according to established practice for failing to report to work.

The Board found that the Hospital's actions, while opportunistic and partly prompted by the strike, were not motivated by a desire to chill lawful union activity or freeze out the union executive.

The complaint was dismissed.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by paying incentive workers their day rate, rather than their average hourly earnings, during periods when work was suspended due to unsafe air contamination.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer treated the situation as 'idle time' under the collective agreement and did not impose a penalty on the employees because they sought compliance with the Act.

A dissenting member would have found the failure to pay average hourly earnings constituted a pecuniary penalty.

The applicant hospital applied under section 95(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine whether its Head Nurses were 'employees' within the meaning of the Act.

Following an amalgamation with an adjacent hospital, the employer revised the Head Nurses' job descriptions to align with the other hospital's structure, where Head Nurses were excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board found that significant material changes had occurred in the Head Nurses' duties, including independent authority to grant time off, require overtime, monitor attendance, and participate in hiring and discipline.

The Board concluded that the Head Nurses exercised managerial functions and were no longer 'employees' under section 1(3)(b) of the Act.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that an employee was discharged for trade union activity, and a related employer application seeking a declaration that Contempoform Incorporated and CTF Construction Ltd. are one employer.

The Board found that the employee was unlawfully discharged for asserting his rights under the collective agreement and ordered his reinstatement with compensation.

The Board also declared the corporate entities to be one employer bound by the shop agreement, finding they were functionally interrelated and under common control.

The applicant union applied under section 95(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine whether three municipal employees exercised managerial functions and were thus excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board reviewed the duties of the water supervisor, arena manager, and building inspector/zoning administrator.

The Board found that the water supervisor's supervisory duties were incidental to his physical work and he did not exercise managerial functions.

However, the arena manager and the building inspector exercised sufficient independent decision-making authority over hiring, scheduling, and discipline to be considered managerial.

The applicant employee association applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote to displace the incumbent union (the intervener).

The intervener argued the application was untimely under section 92(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act due to a recently dismissed termination application, and that a pre-hearing vote could not be ordered before the applicant proved its trade union status.

The Board held that despite the prior unsuccessful termination application, the lengthy strike and passage of time warranted entertaining the certification application to test employee wishes.

The Board also directed a pre-hearing vote with the ballot box sealed pending a subsequent determination of the applicant's trade union status.

The applicant, a temporary full-time employee, filed a complaint alleging she was discharged for her union activities contrary to section 58 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant had circulated a petition and confronted the union president regarding the union's failure to enforce preferential hiring rights for temporary employees.

The Board found that the employer was aware of the applicant's efforts to gain effective union representation and that this knowledge was instrumental in the decision to terminate her without allowing her to compete for a remaining temporary job.

The Board concluded the termination violated the Act and ordered compensation for lost wages and preferential consideration for future permanent positions.

The applicant, a newly-formed employees' association, applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent's mill operation, who were currently represented by the intervener union.

The intervener challenged the applicant's trade union status and the voluntariness of its membership evidence, arguing that an employee involved in organizing the association was perceived as managerial.

The Board found that the applicant met the requirements for trade union status under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also held that the organizing employee did not exercise managerial functions and would not have been perceived by other employees as acting on behalf of management.

The Board directed the appointment of an officer to settle the list of employees and arrange a representation vote.

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

The respondent and objectors argued that truck drivers, servicemen, and motor vehicle mechanics should be excluded from the unit due to a separate community of interest.

The Board applied the Usarco factors and found that the employees did not comprise a unit of such diverse interests and functions to warrant exclusion from an all-employee unit.

The Board also declined to exercise its discretion to conduct a vote on the appropriateness of the unit.

A formal certificate was issued to the applicant.

The union applied for certification.

The employer challenged the inclusion of four persons, arguing they exercised managerial functions.

The Board found all four were employees.

The union also requested certification without a vote under section 7a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the employer committed unfair labour practices.

The Board found the employer violated the Act by suspending a union supporter, withdrawing overtime from union supporters, threatening employees, and posting a notice threatening to reduce holidays.

Concluding that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained in a representation vote and that the union had adequate support, the Board certified the union without a vote.

The Labourers and the Operating Engineers applied for certification of employees at the respondent's new land fill site in Maple.

The Teamsters intervened, asserting they already held bargaining rights for the site under a pre-existing collective agreement.

The applicants argued the Teamsters had abandoned their rights.

The Board found no abandonment, as the Teamsters had merely agreed to postpone asserting their rights until the site was fully operational.

The Board also dismissed the Labourers' argument that they held bargaining rights under section 1(4) of the Act, noting that section 1(4) is meant to protect, not expand, bargaining rights.

A representation vote was ordered with all three unions on the ballot.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of office, clerical, and technical employees.

The parties disputed the employment status of three Work Measurement Applicators.

The employer argued they should be excluded from the unit because they exercised managerial functions and were confidentially employed in matters relating to labour relations.

The Board found that the Work Measurement Applicators made decisions on behalf of the company that directly affected employee wages and represented the company in the grievance procedure.

Consequently, the Board concluded they exercised managerial responsibilities and were confidentially employed, excluding them from the bargaining unit.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer failed to bargain in good faith.

After the union accepted the employer's contract offer, the employer insisted on a joint request to the Minister of Labour for an employee ratification vote under section 34d of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the employer's insistence on a ratification vote after the union had accepted the offer was an unlawful attempt to bypass the exclusive bargaining agent and deal directly with employees.

The Board directed the employer to execute the collective agreements and compensate employees for lost opportunity.

The applicant union filed unfair labour practice complaints and an application for certification without a vote under section 7a of the Labour Relations Act.

The union alleged that the respondent hotel engaged in excessive security surveillance and discharged several employees for their union organizing activities.

The Board found that the respondent violated the Act by implementing security measures designed to restrict organizing and by discharging employees for their union involvement.

Concluding that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained through a vote and that the union had adequate membership support (30%), the Board certified the union and ordered the reinstatement of the discharged employees with compensation.