G. 0. Shamanski

The Teamsters and individual complainants alleged that Steinberg breached the duty to bargain in good faith by negotiating a collective agreement with final offer selection and labour peace provisions, and subsequently selling its Ontario retail operations to A & P. They also alleged that the transaction constituted a sale of the distribution business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, and that the structure of the deal and A & P's subsequent hiring practices were motivated by anti-union animus.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed all applications and complaints, finding no breach of the duty to bargain in good faith, no sale of the distribution business, and no anti-union animus in the transaction's structure or A & P's hiring practices.

The applicant union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the employer interfered with its organizing campaign through bulletins, warnings to organizers, and the announcement of wage and benefit increases.

The Board found that the employer violated sections 65 and 67 of the Labour Relations Act by issuing coercive bulletins, arbitrarily enforcing a no-solicitation rule against organizers, and announcing benefits in a manner that constituted undue influence.

However, the Board declined to grant certification without a vote under section 9.2, concluding that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained through a representation vote following extensive remedial orders, including the posting of notices and union access to the workplace.

The applicant union sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to postpone the hospital's implementation of alternative placement and layoff notices affecting registered practical nurses.

The union alleged the hospital's actions were motivated by anti-union animus and intended to decimate the newly certified bargaining unit during first collective agreement negotiations.

The Board found the union had an arguable case and that the balance of harm favoured granting the interim relief, as the union's position was precarious after three years without a collective agreement.

The Board directed the hospital to restore and maintain the status quo pending the expedited hearing of the main complaint.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of hostel employees employed by the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

The intervener union argued the application should be dismissed because the applicant's constitution restricted membership to employees of the Crown, its agencies, or private employers, rendering municipal employees ineligible.

The Board found that the municipality was a public sector employer and not a 'private employer' within the meaning of the applicant's constitution.

As the applicant lacked an established practice of admitting persons outside its constitutional eligibility requirements, the application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant union sought interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, requesting an order that the responding party employer re-open a logging camp that had recently been closed.

The union alleged the employer failed to disclose the impending closure during collective bargaining.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the balance of harm strongly favoured the employer.

The harm alleged by the union was primarily financial and could be remedied if the main application succeeded.

Furthermore, the union failed to act promptly, waiting until after the camp had closed and equipment had been moved before filing the application.

The applicant union sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to reinstate two resident superintendents who were discharged during a union organizing campaign.

The Board applied its established test for interim relief, finding that the union had made out an arguable case of an unfair labour practice.

Balancing the harm, the Board concluded that the chilling effect of the discharges on the organizing campaign outweighed the employer's concerns about the employees' continued presence, especially since the employees still resided at the property.

The Board ordered the interim reinstatement of the employees pending the disposition of the main complaint.

The applicant sought certification as the bargaining agent for employees of the responding party, seeking to displace the incumbent union.

As the applicant had not previously established its status as a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, a hearing was held.

The intervenor argued that the applicant failed to strictly follow the Board's five-step procedure for establishing trade union status, specifically regarding the ratification of its constitution and quorum requirements.

The Board found that the applicant substantially complied with the requirements, noting that the employees' actions at the organizational meeting demonstrated a clear intention to form a trade union and be bound by its constitution.

The Board concluded that the applicant is a viable organization capable of carrying out its statutory obligations and declared it a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Act.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the Town of Bothwell.

The responding party employer argued that the Deputy Treasurer and the Works Supervisor should be excluded from the bargaining unit under section 1(3) of the Labour Relations Act because they exercised managerial functions or were employed in a confidential capacity.

The Board reviewed the evidence and found that neither individual exercised sufficient independent decision-making authority or had regular, material involvement in confidential labour relations matters to warrant exclusion.

Both individuals were found to be employees for the purposes of the Act, and a certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union sought a single employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act following the closure of a unionized warehouse and the transfer of its work to a newly consolidated, non-unionized warehouse operated by a related corporate entity.

The responding parties conceded they carried on related activities under common control but argued against the declaration on the basis of employee wishes and corporate reorganization.

The Board granted the declaration, finding that the corporate reorganization incidentally undermined established bargaining rights and that the employer could not rely on the situation it created to deny the declaration.

The union applied for an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to compel the employer to recognize and deal with its bargaining unit chairperson, who had been terminated, during negotiations for an adjustment plan related to an impending plant closure.

The employer had refused to meet with any bargaining committee that included the terminated chairperson.

The Board found the union had an arguable case in its main unfair labour practice complaint and that the balance of harm favoured granting the interim relief.

The Board ordered the employer to cease refusing to recognize the chairperson and to meet with the union's committee to bargain in good faith.

The applicant union applied under section 7 of the Labour Relations Act to combine seven separate store bargaining units of the responding party department store into a single bargaining unit.

The parties had a history of centralized bargaining resulting in nearly identical collective agreements.

The employer opposed the combination, arguing it would cause serious labour relations problems and that the existing units were viable.

The Board found that combining the units would reduce fragmentation and facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining without causing serious labour relations problems, given the centralized nature of the employer's operations and the parties' bargaining history.

The application was granted and the units were combined, with one member dissenting.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application for certification after discovering a forged signature on a membership card.

The responding employer opposed the withdrawal, arguing the application should be dismissed with a six-month bar, and sought to introduce evidence of intimidation.

The Board granted the union leave to withdraw the application without imposing a bar, noting the request was made well before the hearing.

The Board declined to hear the intimidation allegations, deferring them to a second certification application filed by the union.

The Employer, a home for the aged, decided to assign the administration of medications to Registered Nursing Assistants (RNAs) instead of Registered Nurses (RNs) to reduce costs.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) filed a work assignment complaint, arguing this violated Article 2.02 of their collective agreement, which protected work normally performed by the bargaining unit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the Employer's past practice of exclusively assigning this work to RNs since 1974 strongly supported ONA's position.

The Board ordered the Employer to cease assigning the disputed work to RNAs and restore it to the RNs.

The applicant trade union applied for certification, initially characterizing the application as pertaining to the construction industry.

When it became apparent the employer was not in the construction industry, the union amended the bargaining unit description.

The employer argued the application date should be changed to the date of the amendment.

The Board rejected this argument, treating the initial characterization as a technical error and maintaining the original application date.

Finding that more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant, the Board issued a certificate.

The applicant unions sought declarations that the responding parties, Malvern Drywall Systems Ltd. and Lakeridge Acoustics, were related employers under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, and referred grievances for arbitration.

The responding parties failed to attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

The Board found that the two businesses carried on related activities under the common control and direction of the same principal.

The Board granted the section 1(4) declaration, binding Lakeridge to the collective agreements of Malvern, and ordered the responding parties to pay outstanding remittances and previous settlement amounts to the unions.

In an application for certification by Shopmen's Local 834, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dealt with several preliminary motions.

The Board denied the respondent's request for an adjournment to give notice to other parties, ruling the issue was raised too late.

The Board also denied a request to extend the terminal date due to an intervener application, maintaining its practice of using the original application's dates.

Finally, the Board refused to defer the certification applications pending the outcome of related grievance referrals.

A Board Officer was appointed to conduct a record check regarding the bargaining unit composition.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint against the respondent employer.

Instead of proceeding to a five-day hearing, the parties reached an omnibus settlement agreement that included conducting a representation vote.

The parties submitted their agreement to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for approval.

The Board approved the agreement, noting its mandate to facilitate the timely resolution of workplace disputes and finding no public policy reason to reject the parties' consensus.

The Board directed a representation vote for the agreed-upon bargaining unit and adjourned the unfair labour practice complaint sine die.

The complainant, a carpenter and health and safety representative, alleged he was laid off in reprisal for his safety activities, contrary to section 24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board found that the employer failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for selecting the complainant for layoff, noting his average or better work performance and the friction caused by his safety duties.

Concluding that the layoff was motivated at least in part by his health and safety role, the Board ordered his reinstatement with compensation.

The union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act concerning the interpretation of a meal allowance provision in the provincial collective agreement.

The provision stated that employees required to stay overnight shall receive a meal allowance of $30.00 per day for each day they are away.

The employer argued the allowance should only cover meals the employee could not have in the normal manner, excluding breakfast on the first day and dinner on the last day.

The Board agreed with the union's interpretation, finding that the provision established a flat per diem rate payable for each work day the employee is away, regardless of their normal eating pattern.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Kent Acoustics Limited and J.L. Acoustics Ltd. constituted a single employer.

The principal of Kent had closed the business in 1981 and later purchased a share in J.L. in 1987, eventually becoming its sole owner.

The Board found that the two companies were engaged in related activities under the common control and direction of the same principal.

Despite the gap in time between the operations, the Board exercised its discretion to grant the declaration to preserve the union's bargaining rights, binding J.L. to the applicable collective agreements.