Employer breached collective agreement by stripping seniority without written notice of recall; grievor reinstated.
The union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the employer laid off the grievor out of seniority order.
The employer argued that the grievor had lost his seniority when he failed to return to work following a telephone recall, and that the union was estopped from relying on the collective agreement's requirement for written notice by registered mail because it had acquiesced to telephone recalls in the past.
The Board found no estoppel, as the union had never agreed that employees could be stripped of seniority for failing to respond to a telephone recall.
Applying the strict language of the collective agreement, the Board held that the employer breached the agreement by removing the grievor's seniority without sending written notice by registered mail.
The Board directed that the grievor be reinstated with full seniority and compensated for lost income.
Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed; union provided adequate representation despite applicant's lack of cooperation.
The applicants, two registered nurses, filed a complaint against their union alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.
They claimed the union delayed scheduling their grievances regarding wage grid placement, failed to support one applicant in Workers' Compensation matters, and failed to prevent her termination for not providing medical information.
The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union had not acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.
The union had filed grievances as requested, provided ongoing advice and representation, and the applicant's termination resulted from her own refusal to comply with the employer's requests and the union's advice.
Single-location bargaining unit found appropriate for gas bar employees to facilitate access to collective bargaining.
The applicant union sought certification for employees at a single gas bar location in Thunder Bay.
The responding party employer argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should encompass both of its gas bar locations in the municipality to avoid fragmentation.
The Board found that the single location was a viable grouping for collective bargaining and that requiring a multi-location unit might seriously impede access to collective bargaining in an industry that has not traditionally been organized.
A representation vote was ordered for the single-location unit.
One Board Member dissented, arguing that splitting the organization into two groups would cause serious labour relations difficulties.
Employer not permitted to resile from agreed bargaining unit description after union membership count released.
The applicant union applied for certification.
During a teleconference with a Labour Relations Officer, the parties agreed on the bargaining unit description and the employee list, and the count was released showing the applicant in a certifiable position.
The responding party later retained new counsel and sought to resile from the agreed bargaining unit description, requesting the Board exercise its discretion under section 6(1) of the Labour Relations Act to amend it.
The Board declined to permit the responding party to resile from its agreement, finding no extraordinary circumstances to depart from its general rule that parties cannot alter their positions on the bargaining unit structure after the count has been given.
The Board found the agreed unit appropriate and directed the responding party to clarify its legal identity.