F. W. Murray

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

An objecting employee alleged that a union organizer told her she would not be permitted to work unless she joined the union.

The objector had not filed prior notice or particulars of this allegation as required by Rule 47.

The Board declined to appoint a Board Officer or order a representation vote immediately, but, balancing natural justice and the risk of delay, exercised its discretion to allow the unrepresented objector an opportunity to file particulars and adduce evidence at a further hearing.

One Board member dissented, arguing the union should be certified without delay.

The applicant, Cambridge Employees' Association, applied for certification to represent the respondent's employees.

The intervener, another trade union, also applied for certification and argued that the applicant lacked trade union status or was barred from certification under section 12 of the Labour Relations Act due to employer support.

The Board found that the applicant had taken the necessary steps to constitute itself as a trade union.

The Board also found insufficient evidence to support the intervener's claim of employer support, despite the applicant's president having obtained the name of their legal counsel from the respondent's general manager.

The intervener's application was dismissed for lack of sufficient membership evidence, and a certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union sought certification for employees of the respondent at its Hamilton and London clinics.

The parties disputed the inclusion of two employees in the bargaining units.

The respondent argued that the Assistant Director at Hamilton should be excluded under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act or for lack of community of interest, but the Board restricted the issue to section 1(3)(b) based on prior proceedings and found she was not excluded.

The Board found that the Consultant at London spent the vast majority of her time performing sales and office functions and was therefore excluded from the bargaining unit as office and sales staff.

Certificates were issued for both bargaining units.

The complainant trade union alleged that the respondent employer failed to comply with a previous Board order directing the reinstatement of striking employees and other remedies.

The respondent sought a stay of the reinstatement order pending judicial review.

The Board found that the respondent had failed to comply with the order, denied the request for a stay, and directed that the entire determination be filed with the Registrar of the Supreme Court for enforcement pursuant to section 79(5) of the Labour Relations Act.

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

The Board first determined that the application was timely, finding that an early notice to bargain under section 45 of the Labour Relations Act was effective to terminate the collective agreement on its nominal expiry date, despite not complying with the agreement's specific notice provisions.

However, the Board dismissed the application because it was not satisfied that the employee petition was voluntary.

The Board found that the employer's anti-union conduct, including refusing to adhere to the collective agreement, unilaterally introducing benefits, and granting a wage increase immediately prior to the petition, created an atmosphere where employees could not freely express their wishes.

The applicant union applied for certification and filed documentary evidence of membership supported by a Form 8 Declaration.

During the hearing, it was revealed that the union official who signed the Form 8 Declaration had not made the necessary inquiries of the collectors regarding how the membership cards were solicited and whether the initiation fees were properly collected.

The Board held that the Form 8 Declaration did not meet the strict standards required, as the declarant lacked the requisite personal knowledge or knowledge gained from proper inquiries.

Consequently, the membership evidence solicited by persons other than the declarant was rejected, and the application for certification was dismissed.

This is a dissenting opinion in an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision regarding an employer's request for a final offer vote under section 34e of the Labour Relations Act.

The dissenting Board Member disagreed with the majority's finding that the employer breached the duty to bargain in good faith under section 14 by requesting the vote.

The dissent emphasized that economic realities and the relationship between the parties can change during a strike, particularly when the strike has the support of a minority of the bargaining unit.

The dissenting member would have denied the union any remedy due to its conduct during the bargaining process.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer failed to bargain in good faith during negotiations for a first collective agreement.

After a lengthy strike, the employer withdrew its monetary proposals shortly after the introduction of legislation mandating dues check-off, which had been the main issue in dispute.

The Board found that the employer's withdrawal of the offer and its rigid position on union security were aimed at avoiding a collective agreement, violating section 14 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the employer to table its previous offer and directed the reinstatement of striking employees who make an unconditional application to return to work.

The complainant employer bargaining agency alleged that the respondent union violated section 134a(1) of the Labour Relations Act by failing to authorize a strike for all employees in the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector of the construction industry, specifically by continuing to supply workers for maintenance work.

The Board examined whether the work performed under various maintenance agreements constituted construction work or maintenance work.

The Board found that while most of the work was maintenance and thus outside the ICI sector, some minor new construction work was performed in violation of the Act.

However, given the union's reasonable efforts to comply and the complainant's members' inconsistent conduct, the Board declined to issue a cease and desist order and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant union applied under section 95(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether certain persons were members of the bargaining unit according to the collective agreement.

The respondent employer confirmed it did not dispute that the contested persons were employees for the purposes of the Act.

The Board held that its jurisdiction under section 95(2) is limited to determining whether a person is an employee under the Act, not whether they are covered by a specific collective agreement.

As the only issue was the interpretation of the collective agreement's scope clause, the Board dismissed the application, noting the matter was properly for private arbitration.

The applicant hospital applied under section 95(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether its Head Nurses were 'employees'.

The respondent union argued the issue was res judicata due to a 1976 Board decision.

The Board noted that while a doctrine analogous to res judicata applies, it does not preclude a fresh application where duties have materially changed.

However, because the parties were bound by a recent collective agreement, the Board limited the appointment of a Labour Relations Officer to inquiring only into changes in duties and responsibilities since the date the collective agreement was entered into.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for full-time and part-time employees of the respondent restaurant.

A statement of desire in opposition to the union was filed, bearing signatures of employees who had also signed union cards.

For the part-time unit, an employee voluntarily revoked his signature on the petition, leaving the union with sufficient support for automatic certification.

For the full-time unit, the Board heard evidence on the voluntariness of the petition.

Despite a gap in evidence regarding the petition's delivery to the Board and an employee meeting called by management, the Board found the petition was a voluntary expression of the employees' wishes.

Consequently, the Board directed a representation vote for the full-time bargaining unit.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent hotel violated sections 58 and 70 of the Labour Relations Act by reprimanding one employee, discharging another, and altering working conditions during the statutory freeze period.

The Board dismissed the section 58 complaints, finding no evidence of anti-union animus in the employer's disciplinary actions.

The Board also found that the removal of bar stools did not violate section 70, as it was part of an ongoing renovation program.

However, the Board concluded that the discharge of an employee for purchasing U.S. funds violated section 70, as this practice was an established employee privilege that could not be unilaterally abrogated during the freeze period.

The discharged employee was ordered reinstated with compensation.

The applicants, employers' organizations, referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employers failed to remit industry fund contributions required by a provincial collective agreement.

The respondents raised preliminary objections, including res judicata and lack of jurisdiction, arguing section 112a does not permit grievances between parties of like interest.

The Board agreed that section 112a only applies to disputes between opposing interests (employers vs. unions) and that recent amendments did not change this substantive limitation.

However, the Board held that the failure to pay industry fund dues constitutes a violation of section 134(2) of the Act, which makes the provincial agreement binding, and that the applicants could seek relief under the unfair labour practice provisions in section 79.

The matter was referred to the Registrar for continuation of the hearing.

The complainant union alleged that the employer discharged seven employees, including a foreman, contrary to the Labour Relations Act following an unsuccessful certification campaign.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board should defer to arbitration under the collective agreement with the incumbent union.

The Board declined to defer, finding the allegations of collusion between the employer and incumbent union went beyond the administration of the collective agreement.

On the merits, the Board dismissed the complaint, accepting the employer's evidence that the decision to close the pipe shop and contract out the work was made for legitimate business reasons to achieve cost savings, and was not motivated by anti-union animus.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices by discharging two telephone operators for their union activity and by violating the statutory freeze period.

The employer claimed the discharges were due to the failure of an experimental telephone dispatch system.

The Board found that the employer failed to discharge its reverse onus to prove the terminations were free of anti-union animus, given the employer's knowledge of the employees' union support and previous anti-union conduct.

The Board also held that the unilateral elimination of the telephone operator classification and the alteration of the dispatchers' hours of work during the freeze period violated section 70(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer was ordered to reinstate the grievors with compensation.

The applicants, employees of two related companies, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union had recently obtained a related employer declaration sweeping the applicants into the bargaining unit.

The union argued the Board should exercise its discretion to bar the termination application and challenged the voluntariness of the employees' petition.

The Board held it lacked authority to impose a bar analogous to a sale of business scenario and found the employees' opposition to the union was voluntary.

A representation vote was directed.

The complainant union alleged that the grievor was discharged for his union organizing activities, contrary to the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer claimed the discharge was due to poor productivity and a bad attitude.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving that the termination was free from anti-union animus.

The Board noted the timing of the discharge, the lack of prior discipline, and inconsistencies in management's evidence.

The Board ordered the grievor reinstated with full compensation.

The applicant union filed two applications for certification.

A preliminary issue arose regarding a Form 8 declaration concerning membership documents, which was signed by the union organizer's secretary on her behalf.

Evidence revealed that the organizer failed to make the necessary inquiries required by Form 8 for membership cards left at her office in her absence.

Because the Board relies heavily on the Form 8 declaration to accept hearsay membership evidence, the failure to make proper inquiries rendered the declarations unreliable.

Without substantiated membership evidence, both applications for certification were dismissed.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer improperly sub-contracted plastering and stucco work.

The respondent argued that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights, as it had not directly employed bricklayers for five or six years.

The Board found that the union had not voluntarily abandoned its rights, noting that the respondent had complied with sub-contracting provisions by using unionized firms and that the employer bargaining agency had continued to include the respondent in provincial agreements.

The Board ruled the respondent was bound by the provincial collective agreement and directed the parties to attempt to resolve the remaining issues.