George W. Adams

The complainant, an owner-operator of a crane, alleged that the respondent union breached the Labour Relations Act by negotiating a subcontracting clause that required owner-operators to have an agreement with the union, and then refusing to sign such an agreement with him.

This refusal effectively prevented him from working on unionized construction sites.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that owner-operators were not employees within the meaning of the provincial collective agreement, and therefore the union owed them no duty of fair representation under section 60 or 136(1).

The Board also found no violation of section 60a regarding hiring hall referrals, nor any unlawful intimidation or coercion under section 61.

The applicant applied for an exemption from the union security provisions of a collective agreement on the grounds of religious conviction or belief.

The applicant was hired in 1977 and became a member of the union.

He later concluded that his association with the union was inconsistent with his religious beliefs.

The Board dismissed the application because section 39 of the Labour Relations Act only allows for an exemption during the life of the first collective agreement containing such provisions, provided the employee was employed at the time it was entered into.

The applicant did not meet these requirements.

The applicant employee association applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote to displace the incumbent union (the intervener).

The intervener argued the application was untimely under section 92(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act due to a recently dismissed termination application, and that a pre-hearing vote could not be ordered before the applicant proved its trade union status.

The Board held that despite the prior unsuccessful termination application, the lengthy strike and passage of time warranted entertaining the certification application to test employee wishes.

The Board also directed a pre-hearing vote with the ballot box sealed pending a subsequent determination of the applicant's trade union status.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by refusing to allow the union to have legal counsel present during a grievance meeting.

The employer moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing there is no statutory or common law right to counsel during an in-house grievance procedure.

The Board dismissed the complaint, holding that a grievance procedure is a private process, not a quasi-judicial proceeding, and therefore the rules of natural justice do not apply.

However, the Board noted the union could potentially amend its complaint to argue that the employer's refusal interfered with the union's internal right to determine its own representation.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer failed to bargain in good faith.

After the union accepted the employer's contract offer, the employer insisted on a joint request to the Minister of Labour for an employee ratification vote under section 34d of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the employer's insistence on a ratification vote after the union had accepted the offer was an unlawful attempt to bypass the exclusive bargaining agent and deal directly with employees.

The Board directed the employer to execute the collective agreements and compensate employees for lost opportunity.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of office, clerical, technical employees, teacher aides, and cafeteria aides.

The employer objected to the proposed unit, arguing that permanent part-time employees should be included, casual/temporary employees excluded, and secretaries to principals excluded due to managerial or confidential duties.

The Board held that permanent part-time employees do not share a community of interest with full-time employees and excluded them, while including casual/temporary full-time employees.

The Board also found that secretaries to principals have regular and material involvement in confidential labour relations matters and excluded them under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board directed the counting of the ballots.

The complainant trade union alleged that the respondent employer failed to comply with a previous Board order directing the reinstatement of striking employees and other remedies.

The respondent sought a stay of the reinstatement order pending judicial review.

The Board found that the respondent had failed to comply with the order, denied the request for a stay, and directed that the entire determination be filed with the Registrar of the Supreme Court for enforcement pursuant to section 79(5) of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer requested a final offer vote under section 34e of the Labour Relations Act during a strike.

A majority of employees voted to accept the offer, but the trade union refused to sign the collective agreement, arguing the vote was merely an opinion poll and that the employer's pre-vote communications, which included a reference to a possible plant closure, constituted unlawful coercion.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that a section 34e vote in favour of an offer creates a binding basis for a collective agreement in the usual case.

The Board found the employer's statements were reasonable predictions based on bargaining reality rather than unlawful threats.

The trade union was directed to execute the collective agreement.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent owner/operators of trucks engaged by the respondent construction companies.

The central issue was whether these owner/operators were 'dependent contractors' under the Labour Relations Act or independent contractors.

The Board examined the economic relationship between the owner/operators and the respondents, noting that the owner/operators worked for many different companies, derived only a small percentage of their income from the respondents, owned their own vehicles, and exhibited entrepreneurial initiative.

The Board concluded that the owner/operators were not in a position of economic dependence on the respondents and were therefore independent contractors.

The applications for certification were dismissed.

The complainant trade union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the respondent employer violated section 14 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to bargain in good faith.

The parties had previously signed a memorandum of settlement, but the employer refused to execute the formal collective agreement, arguing it had not been properly ratified by all employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board found that the recent legislative amendment requiring all employees to participate in a ratification vote was not in effect at the time of the union's ratification.

The Board declared the employer violated section 14, directed it to execute the collective agreement, and ordered damages.

The respondent employers brought a request to vary an interim order previously issued by the Board in a jurisdictional dispute under section 81 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employers sought to add specific installation work to the order.

The Board noted that both the complainant and respondent trade unions had claimed this work at the time the initial complaint was filed, and their positions remained unchanged.

Relying on its jurisdiction under section 95(1) of the Act, the Board varied the interim order to direct the employers to assign the additional work to members of the appropriate complainant trade unions.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer failed to bargain in good faith during negotiations for a first collective agreement.

After a lengthy strike, the employer withdrew its monetary proposals shortly after the introduction of legislation mandating dues check-off, which had been the main issue in dispute.

The Board found that the employer's withdrawal of the offer and its rigid position on union security were aimed at avoiding a collective agreement, violating section 14 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the employer to table its previous offer and directed the reinstatement of striking employees who make an unconditional application to return to work.

The applicant union applied for certification and a representation vote was held.

The vote resulted in ten ballots for the applicant and nine against, with one segregated ballot cast by an employee whose name was not on the voting list.

A labour relations officer determined the employee was in the bargaining unit.

However, because counting the single segregated ballot would reveal how the employee voted, the Board directed that a new representation vote be taken to protect the secrecy of the ballot.

The complainant union alleged that the employer dismissed a probationary employee because of her activities as a union steward, contrary to The Labour Relations Act.

The employer argued the Board should defer to grievance arbitration under the collective agreement.

The Board refused to defer, noting the employee's probationary status might preclude arbitration and the dispute arose under a first collective agreement.

On the merits, the Board found the employer failed to prove the dismissal was untainted by anti-union animus, given the employee's excellent performance and the timing of her dismissal immediately following her union activities.

The Board ordered reinstatement with full compensation and directed the employer to post a notice.

Ten employees brought a complaint alleging their employer bargained in bad faith contrary to section 14 of the Labour Relations Act by negotiating amendments to a pension plan with their union that affected their individual voluntary contributions.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing.

The Board dismissed the complaint, holding that the duty to bargain in good faith is owed exclusively to the trade union as the certified bargaining agent, and individual employees have no standing to bring a section 14 complaint against the employer.

The applicant applied for a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the respondent trade union.

The collective agreement was for a term of two years, expiring on September 30, 1980.

The application was filed on July 8, 1980, which was prior to the commencement of the last two months of the agreement's operation.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing pursuant to Rule 46 of the Rules of Procedure, as it was untimely under section 49(2)(a) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration alleging the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement (Schedule D) by paying lower wage rates under a different roadbuilders' agreement.

The respondent argued it had joined the roadbuilders' association and was thus bound by that agreement instead.

The Board held that an employer cannot unilaterally switch collective agreements by joining a new employers' organization without the written consent of the trade union, pursuant to section 44(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found the respondent remained bound by Schedule D and granted the union's request for a declaration and related relief.

The objecting employees sought reconsideration of the Board's decision to continue processing two certification applications after the Supreme Court of Ontario quashed the Board's original certification decisions.

The objectors argued the Board should have sought instruction from the Court, improperly relied on case law, should not hear new evidence, and that the passage of time prejudiced them.

The Board dismissed the application for reconsideration, finding it was legally obligated to process the outstanding applications and that arguments regarding prejudice from the passage of time should be made to the newly constituted panel hearing the merits.

The complainant filed a complaint under Section 79 of the Labour Relations Act against her employer, alleging she was improperly demoted and suspended for three days without pay.

The complaint did not allege any violation of the Act, such as demotion for trade union activity, nor did it allege the union failed to adequately represent her.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing pursuant to Rule 46 of its Rules of Procedure, finding that the complaint failed to make out a prima facie case for the remedy requested because a demotion without just cause does not by itself contravene the Act.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees at Ontario Hydro's nuclear energy facilities, seeking to carve them out of an existing province-wide bargaining unit represented by the intervener.

The applicant requested a pre-hearing representation vote under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board refused the request, finding that the proposed bargaining unit was highly complex, uncertain, and a departure from the established province-wide collective bargaining relationship.

The Board concluded that the appropriateness of the bargaining unit must be determined before any representation vote could be reliably conducted.