Gail Misra

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith under section 17 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer had bargained to impasse a proposal to amend the union's 'all employee' bargaining unit description to exclude all registrants of the College of Nurses, effectively removing future registered practical nurses from the unit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that a party cannot press to impasse a demand that alters the scope of established bargaining rights or work jurisdiction when a strike or lockout is imminent.

The Board declared the employer in breach of section 17 and directed it to withdraw the proposal and resume bargaining.

The union applied for an interim order to prevent the employer from unilaterally excluding seven employees from the bargaining unit at the commencement of a lawful strike.

The employer argued the Board's jurisdiction to grant interim relief was limited to procedural matters under section 98 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board held that section 16.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act grants it a general power to make interim orders, which prevails over section 98 of the LRA due to the conflict provision in section 32 of the SPPA.

Applying the two-pronged test for interim relief, the Board found the union had established an arguable case of unfair labour practices and that the balance of labour relations harm favoured granting the order, as the employer's actions undermined the strike and union morale.

The union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration, and an employee subsequently applied for termination of bargaining rights.

During the hearing, the employer accepted the union's proposed collective agreement.

The Board ruled orally that the parties had effected a proposed collective agreement, which required a ratification vote.

The union sought reconsideration of this ruling, arguing that contract principles should not apply and that the proposal was implicitly withdrawn.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request.

The Board also held that the subsequent ratification vote in favour of the collective agreement could not be construed as an expression of employee wishes regarding the termination application, and directed the parties to make further submissions on the status of the two applications.

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging the employer engaged in bad faith bargaining during a lengthy strike.

The employer refused to meet with the union for over three months despite repeated requests, citing picket line issues and production demands.

When the employer finally tabled a proposal, it contained significant concessions that undermined seniority and union protections.

The Board found the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith by failing to meet and by tabling a proposal designed for rejection.

The Board directed the parties to return to bargaining forthwith.

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints and an application for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

The Board found that the employer breached the statutory freeze provision by cancelling a long-standing annual Christmas bonus.

The Board also found that the employer's communications to employees, including a letter from the partners and comments by management, constituted unlawful interference, intimidation, and coercion.

Finally, the Board concluded that the employer failed to make reasonable efforts to conclude a collective agreement, took uncompromising positions without reasonable justification, and refused to recognize the union's bargaining authority.

The Board directed that the first collective agreement be settled by arbitration and dismissed a related termination application.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging that the employer distributed a video and letter to employees shortly before a representation vote that materially misrepresented the statutory freeze provisions under section 86 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union also alleged that the employer's statements regarding plant competitiveness were threatening.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that both parties had provided incomplete but not materially false descriptions of the statutory freeze, and that the employer's statements about competitiveness fell within the permissible limits of employer speech.

As the union lost the representation vote, the certification application was dismissed.

The Practical Nurses Federation of Ontario applied for certification to represent practical nurses employed by the responding party.

The responding party filed a timely response proposing a slightly different bargaining unit, and the Board ordered a representation vote based on the application and response.

After the vote was ordered, the responding party sought to amend its response to propose an 'all employee' bargaining unit.

The Board held that the responding party was bound by its original response, as allowing an amendment after the statutory deadline and after vote arrangements were made would prejudice the applicant and undermine the expedited certification process.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit comprised exclusively of the food and beverage staff at a public golf and country club.

The employer argued that the appropriate unit should be an 'all employee' unit, including pro shop and grounds maintenance staff, due to the functional integration of the club's operations.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the golf club operated as a highly integrated enterprise, with significant coordination and shared duties among the various departments.

The Board concluded that carving out a departmental bargaining unit for the food and beverage staff would cause undue fragmentation and serious labour relations problems.

Consequently, the proposed bargaining unit was deemed inappropriate, and the union withdrew its application with leave of the Board.

The applicant, a university professor, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his faculty association after it refused to take his grievance to arbitration.

The grievance, which alleged a breach of academic freedom, had been held in abeyance for several years pending the outcome of the applicant's civil suit.

After the civil suit was dismissed for delay, the applicant sought to reactivate the grievance.

The faculty association obtained a legal opinion indicating the grievance would likely be dismissed at arbitration due to the inordinate delay, and subsequently voted not to proceed.

The applicant alleged the decision was motivated by political animus and was arbitrary, discriminatory, and in bad faith.

The Board granted the responding party's motion for non-suit, finding no evidence of animus or bad faith, and concluding the union had honestly considered the merits and the delay issue in reaching its decision.

The applicant union sought to certify a bargaining unit of chicken catchers employed by the responding party.

The responding party argued that the employees were agricultural workers and therefore excluded from the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that catching chickens in the barns where they are raised is a harvesting function integral to the agricultural operation, distinct from the industrial processing of the chickens.

Consequently, the employees were deemed agricultural workers, and the certification application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of projectionists at the responding party's IMAX theatre.

The parties agreed to have the Board determine as a preliminary issue whether the applicant had craft status with respect to the projectionists under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the projectionists exercised technical skills distinguishing them from other employees, that the union commonly bargained separately for this craft, and that the union pertained to such skills.

The Board concluded that the three conditions for craft status were satisfied.

In an application for certification of a craft unit of projectionists, the union objected to cross-examination regarding the specific skills exercised by the projectionists.

The union argued that the licensing requirement under the Theatres Act was determinative of the projectionists' status as a distinguishable craft under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board upheld the objection, finding that the mandatory licensing regime under the Theatres Act established that the projectionists were members of a craft by reason of which they were distinguishable from other employees, making further inquiry into their technical skills unnecessary.

The applicant filed a complaint under s. 91(7) of the Labour Relations Act alleging the responding party failed to comply with a written settlement agreement resolving an earlier unfair labour practice complaint.

The responding party argued the settlement was void due to the applicant's failure to disclose that another employee intended to file a similar complaint, and alleged issues with union membership evidence.

The Board held that the applicant had no duty to disclose the other employee's intentions and that the settlement terms were clear and binding.

The Board ordered the responding party to comply with the settlement and pay the agreed funds, but declined to award interest due to the applicant's delay in bringing the enforcement application.

The employer applied to combine two bargaining units.

The union raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 7(1) of the Labour Relations Act because the two units were represented by different local unions.

The Board found that neither local had proven its trade union status before the Board, nor had there been a declaration of a transfer of jurisdiction from the national union to the locals.

Therefore, the national union remained the bargaining agent for both units, giving the Board jurisdiction to consider the combination application.

The union applied for certification on the same day the employer's plant began a summer shutdown.

The employer posted the required notice to employees, but no employees were at work to see it before the terminal date expired.

The employer argued the application should be voided ab initio due to lack of notice.

The Board found that while proper notice was not given, the appropriate remedy was not to dismiss the application but to extend the terminal date to allow employees an opportunity to participate.

The applicant union applied to combine two separate craft bargaining units (press/photomechanical and mail room) at the responding party's newspaper printing plant.

The employer opposed the combination, arguing that the Labour Relations Act does not permit the combination of craft units and that it would cause serious labour relations problems due to differing interests.

The Board held that section 6(3) of the Act does not bar the combination of craft units under section 7.

Finding that combination would facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining and reduce fragmentation without causing serious labour relations problems, the Board granted the application and ordered the units combined.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the application.

The applicant union alleged a sale of a business from Ontario Place Corporation to MCA Concerts Canada, claiming MCA was bound by a collective agreement as a successor employer.

The Board determined as a preliminary issue whether a collective bargaining relationship existed between the union and Ontario Place Corporation.

The Board found that the historical arrangement for supplying stagehands and lighting personnel was a sub-contracting relationship for specialized technical services, not a collective bargaining relationship.

The letter agreements lacked standard collective agreement language and were seasonal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The applicants applied to terminate the responding party union's bargaining rights.

Although the initial termination petition had sufficient signatures, the union filed counter-petitions (statements of reaffirmation) signed by several of the same employees.

The Board found the counter-petitions were voluntary and not employer-supported.

Because the voluntary counter-petitions reduced the number of valid termination signatures below the required 45% threshold, the Board dismissed the termination application.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of objecting employees alleged that union organizers used intimidation, coercion, and material misrepresentations to collect membership cards.

The Board heard evidence from several objecting employees but found no substance to the allegations.

The Board concluded that the employees were not coerced or intimidated, and that any statements made by organizers were either salesmanship or did not overcome the employees' free will.

Finding no taint in the membership evidence, the Board certified the union without a representation vote.

The applicant union filed a grievance seeking a declaration that the responding party employer was bound by the provincial ICI collective agreement.

The employer's predecessor had joined the Sarnia Construction Association as a full member, thereby assigning its bargaining rights to the Association, which in turn was a member of the designated Employer Bargaining Agency.

The Board found that by virtue of its membership in the Association, the employer was bound by the provincial ICI agreement across Ontario.

The Board rejected the employer's argument for an indefinite estoppel, ruling instead that the employer was only estopped from applying the agreement to contracts bid on or commenced prior to the date of the decision.