Gail Misra

The applicants sought to suspend an occupational health and safety inspector's orders requiring three workers to complete specific common core and underground construction training before working underground.

The orders were issued following a fatal accident at the Copper Cliff South Mine.

The Board applied the three-factor test for suspending orders and found that suspending the training requirements could potentially endanger worker safety.

Given the minor prejudice to the applicants, who would only need one or two days to complete the training, and the unclear merits of the appeal, the Board dismissed the suspension request.

The applicants sought to suspend an occupational health and safety inspector's orders requiring three workers to complete specific common core and underground construction training before working underground.

The orders were issued following a fatal accident at a mine.

Applying the three-part test for suspending orders, the Board found that suspending the orders could potentially endanger worker safety, the prejudice to the applicants was minor as the training would only take one or two days, and the strength of the appeal could not be determined without evidence on the merits.

The suspension applications were dismissed.

The applicant union sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, arguing that a newly formed non-union plumbing business was under common control and direction with a defunct unionized plumbing business.

The responding parties argued that the personal bankruptcy of the key person severed the common control and direction.

The Board held that the personal bankruptcy did not change the individual's status as a key person or the controlling mind of the businesses.

The Board found the businesses were associated or related and under common control and direction, and exercised its discretion to issue a single employer declaration.

The union alleged that the employer engaged in an illegal lock-out and bargained in bad faith.

During negotiations, the employer's newly appointed representative signed a document resolving all outstanding issues, subject only to the employer president's approval of the language.

The employer subsequently tabled new, substantive proposals.

The Board found that the employer's representative had the authority to conclude an agreement and that the employer bargained in bad faith by reneging on the agreed terms.

However, because the language approval step was not completed, no collective agreement was finalized, and the application alleging an unlawful lock-out was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent an all-employee bargaining unit at a newly formed Crown corporation.

The intervenor union argued that the proposed unit was inappropriate because it would dismantle pre-existing bargaining structures where the intervenor represented supervisory and professional employees.

The Board held that due to the statutory exclusion of successor rights in this privatization, there were no pre-existing bargaining structures binding the new employer.

Applying its standard test, the Board found that an all-employee bargaining unit was appropriate and that the employees shared a sufficient community of interest.

The applicant employer sought to suspend an occupational health and safety inspector's order requiring workers operating material handling equipment to wear protective footwear, pending an appeal.

The Board applied the three-part test for suspending an order and found insufficient reason to grant the suspension.

The applicant failed to file submissions demonstrating a strong prima facie case, lack of hazard, or prejudice, while the Ministry established a potential hazard to worker safety.

The application to suspend the order was dismissed.

The employer and the intervenor union sought reconsideration of a Board decision that set the voter eligibility date for a representation vote as the date of the applicant union's certification application.

The employer argued that 27 employees hired after the application date should be permitted to vote, as they had been in a previous vote involving the intervenor.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the employer had been explicitly invited to make submissions on voter eligibility prior to the vote being ordered but had failed to do so.

The Board concluded there was no reason to depart from its normal practice of using the application date for voter eligibility, and ordered that the 27 segregated ballots not be counted.

A certificate was issued to the applicant union.

The union applied for certification to represent homecare workers (homemakers) at the Huntsville District Memorial Hospital.

The hospital argued that the homemakers were independent contractors and therefore not employees under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board applied the factors for assessing dependent contractor status, including the use of substitutes, ownership of tools, entrepreneurial activity, and integration into the employer's operations.

The Board concluded that the homemakers were in a contractual relationship of dependency with the hospital, making them dependent contractors and thus employees for the purposes of the Act.

A certificate was issued to the union.

The applicants sought to terminate the bargaining rights of the union.

The union alleged that the employer initiated the application and engaged in threats, coercion, or intimidation, contrary to section 63(16) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the employer had significantly and influentially involved itself in the initiation and support of the termination application, including providing financial support, facilitating the collection of petition signatures during working hours, and providing transportation to the representation vote.

The Board exercised its discretion to dismiss the application and ordered the ballots destroyed.

The union applied to the Board for determinations regarding unresolved issues in negotiating an essential services agreement under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993.

The Board held it lacked jurisdiction to prohibit the employer from using replacement workers during a strike or lock-out, given the statutory amendments in section 41.1.

However, the Board ordered the parties to negotiate in good faith regarding the terms and conditions of employment for essential service workers.

The Board also directed the parties to negotiate protocols for situations where a designated essential service worker is absent or exercises the right to refuse unsafe work.

The union referred a construction industry grievance to arbitration, alleging the employer improperly laid off three employees and failed to recall them following a job site accident.

The employer raised preliminary objections that the grievance was untimely and failed to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board found that while the grievance was filed late, the employer waived its right to object to timeliness by engaging in settlement discussions without reserving its rights.

The Board also held that the collective agreement contained no right of recall, dismissing that aspect of the grievance, but found a prima facie case existed regarding the union's claim that the layoff itself was arbitrary or in bad faith.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at Brock University.

Prior to the hearing, the parties resolved all matters in dispute.

Several objecting employees filed statements of desire raising concerns about the adequacy of notice for the representation vote.

The Board found that the employer had posted notices in multiple locations five days prior to the vote, satisfying the statutory requirements under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

As more than fifty percent of the ballots cast were in favour of the union, the Board directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicants filed a complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union had negotiated an agreement with the employer to grant seniority to temporary employees, which displaced existing members on the seniority list.

The union failed to inform the membership of this specific change and its implications prior to the ratification vote.

The Board found that the union's failure to provide sufficient information to allow for informed debate on a matter significantly affecting job security was arbitrary and constituted a breach of the duty of fair representation.

However, the Board found no breach regarding the union's subsequent withdrawal of a grievance on the matter.

The union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

Subsequently, an employee filed a termination application.

The employer then accepted the union's proposed collective agreement, which was ratified by the employees.

The Board held that the first contract application was moot because a collective agreement had been reached.

The Board exercised its discretion to order a new representation vote on the termination application, as the employees had now experienced the collective agreement and could better gauge their wishes.

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.