G. 0. Shamanski

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether a conciliation officer must be appointed following the sale of a hospital business.

The predecessor employer and the union had already completed conciliation and constituted an arbitration board under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act prior to the sale.

The Board advised the Minister that under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, the union's notice to bargain to the successor employer has the same effect as certification, entitling the parties to utilize all dispute resolution mechanisms anew.

Consequently, the previously constituted arbitration board has no jurisdiction over the successor employer, and the Minister is required to appoint a conciliation officer.

The applicant union filed a second application for certification after withdrawing its first application due to employer allegations of non-pay and misconduct regarding membership evidence.

The employer argued the fresh membership evidence in the second application was tainted by the alleged prior misconduct and sought dismissal or a representation vote.

The Board found no evidence of impropriety in the collection of the fresh cards and held that the withdrawal of the first application did not preclude the union from relying on new, untainted evidence.

The Board certified the union, finding it had the requisite support of more than fifty-five percent of the employees.

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

A dispute arose over the number of employees in the bargaining unit, specifically whether temporary agency workers should be included.

The Board found that despite the 'all employee' description in the collective agreement, neither the union nor the employer ever intended for agency workers to be part of the bargaining unit.

The Board concluded that agency workers are not employees in the bargaining unit for the purposes of section 57 of the Labour Relations Act, and directed the matter to be relisted to determine the voluntariness of the petition.

The applicant union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking exclusive assignment of all heavy equipment floating work, which was currently shared with the respondent union.

The Board first denied the applicant's request to introduce evidence of area practice and certain documents due to its failure to comply with the Board's Rules and Practice Note regarding timely disclosure.

On the merits, the Board considered various criteria including collective bargaining relationships, economy and efficiency, employer practice, employer preference, job loss, and delay.

While economy and efficiency slightly favoured the applicant, the employer's long-standing practice of sharing the work, its preference to maintain the negotiated status quo, potential job loss for the respondent union, and the applicant's delay in bringing the complaint weighed heavily against altering the assignment.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant employees applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union at a specific branch.

The Board first amended the original certificate to reflect the branch's relocation to a new address, as requested by the union and employer without objection.

The Board then found that over 45% of employees in the full-time bargaining unit had voluntarily signified they no longer wished to be represented by the union, and directed a representation vote.

However, the application was dismissed with respect to the part-time bargaining unit, as less than 45% of those employees had signified such a desire.

The applicant union requested a pre-hearing representation vote in its application for certification.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to conduct a vote until it determined whether the respondent or the hospital was the true employer of the dietary staff.

The Board held that it is not required to resolve the identity of the employer before conducting a pre-hearing vote, as doing so would frustrate the purpose of the expedited vote procedure.

The Board directed that a vote be held among the agreed-upon voting constituency, with the ballot box to be sealed pending the resolution of the employer identity issue.

The complainant filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer breached sections 50 and 67 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to hire him for a vacant position and by discussing the position directly with applicants.

The Board dismissed the allegations against the employer at the outset of the hearing.

The Board declined to entertain the section 50 complaint, deferring to the arbitration process since the allegations did not amount to a total repudiation of the collective agreement.

The Board also found that the employer's discussions with applicants did not constitute interference with the union's bargaining rights under section 67.

The hearing proceeded solely on the section 68 duty of fair representation complaint against the union.

The applicants filed an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union argued the application was untimely because a conciliation officer had already been appointed following the union's notice to bargain.

The applicants argued that the union failed to give notice of the conciliation appointment and that the statutory time limits violated their freedom of association under the Charter.

The Board dismissed the application as untimely under section 61(2) of the Labour Relations Act, finding that the union had no obligation to notify employees of the conciliation appointment and that the Charter argument could not be entertained without notice to the Attorneys General.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether an individual was an 'employee' or excluded due to managerial functions.

The respondent employer argued the Board should decline to inquire because the union had agreed to exclude the individual during the prior certification proceeding.

The Board held that omitting an individual from the employer's schedules does not constitute a binding agreement on their employee status.

Finding no clear agreement that the individual exercised managerial functions, the Board appointed a Board Officer to inquire into the individual's duties and responsibilities.

The respondent and intervener requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsider its previous decision, which had found the respondent in violation of a collective agreement and ordered it to pay damages.

The Board reconsidered and revoked its previous decision pursuant to section 106(1) of the Labour Relations Act because the intervener had not received notice of the original hearing.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to be listed for a hearing de novo before a different panel.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated sections 66 and 80(1) of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to re-hire a former employee for a part-time position because of his union activities and his testimony in previous Board proceedings.

The employer claimed the refusal was due to the employee's limited availability and lack of initiative.

The Board found that the employer failed to discharge its reverse onus under section 89(5) of the Act to prove that its decision was entirely free of anti-union animus, particularly because the employer failed to call the managers who actually made the hiring decision.

The Board drew an adverse inference from this failure and ordered the employer to offer the employee a part-time position and compensate him for lost wages.

The union filed complaints alleging the employer violated the statutory freeze provisions of section 79 of the Labour Relations Act.

Following the union's application for certification, the employer, which had recently been acquired by a new parent company, unilaterally changed the date of the annual wage increase, cancelled an existing profit-sharing plan, implemented a new incentive plan for only a portion of the bargaining unit, and lowered starting rates for certain classifications.

The Board applied the 'reasonable expectations' test and found that the employer's actions violated the statutory freeze, as employees reasonably expected the continuation of uniform treatment, the profit-sharing plan, and the historical timing of wage increases.

The Board deferred remedial orders to allow the parties to negotiate a resolution.

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union applied for certification to represent employees of Canada Dry Bottling Company Ltd. in Peterborough.

The union filed sufficient membership evidence for automatic certification, but a group of employees filed a petition opposing the application.

The Board held a hearing to determine the voluntariness of the petition.

Due to a material gap in the evidence regarding the physical custody of the petition for a nine-hour period, the Board could not be satisfied that the petition was free from management influence.

The Board gave the petition no weight and granted the union's application for certification.

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

The parties partially agreed on the bargaining unit description but disputed the exclusion of 'working foremen' as managerial personnel and the inclusion of a specific employee based on hours worked.

The Board appointed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into these disputed individuals.

The Board declined the applicant's request for a clarity note restricting the technical staff exclusion to specific classifications.

The Board found sufficient overlap between union membership cards and an employee petition opposing the union to make the petition relevant, necessitating a hearing on its voluntariness.

The matter was adjourned to hear evidence on the petition's voluntariness and newly raised allegations of misconduct by both parties.

Following a successful representation vote and certification of the Canadian Paperworkers Union, the intervener union requested that the Board revoke the certificate or order a new vote.

The intervener alleged that the applicant union distributed a forged legal opinion to employees prior to the vote.

The Board found that while a union representative had fabricated the letter, it did not constitute fraud under section 58 of the Labour Relations Act because it was not a representation made to the Board.

The Board declined to reconsider its decision or order a new vote, concluding that the contents of the letter did not deprive employees of their ability to exercise their critical faculties.

The applicant union brought applications under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act following the conversion of several New Dominion stores to A & P stores.

The Board found that the conversions constituted a transfer of part of a business, making A & P the successor employer.

To resolve the conflict between the province-wide bargaining rights of the applicant and the existing rights of the intervener unions at the converted stores, the Board amended the applicant's scope clause to exclude the converted stores by street address and added a clarity note to the interveners' scope clauses to preserve their bargaining rights at those specific locations, without restricting their broader geographic scope.

The union applied for certification for full-time and part-time employees of the respondent hotel.

The Board addressed two preliminary matters: a request by objecting employees to extend the terminal date because their petition was stolen, and a motion by the union to dismiss the employer's allegation that a union organizer offered kickbacks during a previous campaign.

The Board refused to extend the terminal date, finding the petitioners did not exercise sufficient caution with the document.

The Board also dismissed the kickback allegation without a hearing, ruling that alleged misconduct in a prior campaign could not taint fresh membership evidence in the current campaign.

The part-time certification application was dismissed for insufficient support, while the full-time application was deferred pending resolution of remaining disputes.