George W. Adams, Q. C.

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

The respondent challenged the applicant's trade union status and the validity of its membership evidence, arguing that the applicant failed to follow its own constitution regarding competency examinations, initiation fees, and residency requirements.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also upheld the validity of the membership evidence, noting that the statutory definition of a member supersedes union constitutional requirements for the purposes of certification, and that the residency requirement did not violate the Act.

The matter was referred to a labour relations officer to inquire into the bargaining unit description and employee lists.

The complainant filed a complaint alleging that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to establish or maintain a pension fund.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing pursuant to Rule 71(1) of its Rules of Procedure.

The Board held that section 68 only concerns a union's representation of an employee in relation to their employer, and does not give the Board jurisdiction to intervene in internal union problems such as the administration of a union pension fund.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices by discharging nine employees for alleged misconduct during a strike and refusing to arbitrate their dismissals.

The misconduct involved an incident away from the plant where replacement workers were assaulted.

The Board found that some employees were discharged based on a mistaken belief of their involvement or merely for being present, which violated the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of five employees, some with back pay and others without, but upheld the discharges of those who actually participated in the physical assault.

The applicant, a designated employer bargaining agency, filed a complaint alleging that the respondent companies and trade unions violated the Labour Relations Act by continuing to work and supply employees during a lawful strike in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector.

The respondents argued that pneumatic control work was governed by a separate national agreement and fell outside the provincial agreement.

The Board found that the respondent companies perform pneumatic control installation work within the ICI sector, which is a specialization of the plumbing and pipe fitting trade.

The Board declared the national agreement null and void in the ICI sector, but delayed the effect of the declaration until the expiration of the current provincial agreement to allow the parties to integrate the work.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by settling his grievance over strike-related discipline without his consent.

The union had consolidated 23 similar grievances for expedited arbitration and retained legal counsel.

After several days of hearing, union counsel negotiated a settlement that reduced the discipline for many employees and secured a commitment from the employer regarding the complainant's discipline.

The Board found that the union's decision to settle was based on a thorough understanding of the evidence and the merits of the case, and was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The employer requested that the geographic scope of the bargaining unit be limited to the City of Cornwall, where the existing plant was located.

The union requested a broader unit encompassing the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, as the employer was constructing two new plants outside the municipal boundaries and intended to relocate there.

The Board held that where a relocation is intended at the time of certification and the new site is within the labour market of the existing site, the bargaining unit should embrace the planned move.

The Board found the broader unit appropriate and, being satisfied that more than 55 percent of the employees were members of the trade union, issued a certificate.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated the duty to bargain in good faith under the Labour Relations Act by unlawfully withdrawing an offer to continue COLA payments in order to avoid reaching a collective agreement.

The employer argued that its inexperienced negotiator made a mistake in conveying the company's position during conciliation, and that it promptly corrected the error once discovered.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer had made a genuine mistake and did not intend to continue the COLA payments, and that correcting the unaccepted offer did not constitute bad faith bargaining.

The applicant employer bargaining agency alleged that during a province-wide strike in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector of the construction industry, the respondent affiliated bargaining agents continued to supply union members to certain contractors.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the supply of men during a province-wide strike constituted an unlawful arrangement contrary to section 146(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also held that trade unions have an ongoing obligation under section 148(1) to take reasonable steps to ensure that a strike is called and authorized uniformly, and that the respondents breached this duty by permitting members to work.

Cease and desist orders were issued.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of employees working at Thunder Bay International Airport.

The respondent employer objected, arguing the employees were security guards under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act and that the unit should not be confined to the airport.

The Board held that section 11 did not apply because the employees protected the airlines' property from hijackers, not in their capacity as employers.

The Board also found the single-location bargaining unit appropriate as there was no substantial interchange with other locations.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The respondent employer alleged that the union organizer misrepresented the initiation fee structure by telling employees they would have to pay a higher fee if they did not join immediately, thereby coercing them into signing membership cards.

The Board found that while there may have been some confusion, the organizer did not intend to mislead employees and the statements did not amount to coercion or fundamental misrepresentation.

The Board also found that counter-petitions signed by employees reaffirming their support for the union were voluntary.

As the union had the support of more than 55 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit, a certificate was issued without a representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification for two bargaining units of the respondent's employees.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and determined that the two proposed bargaining units were appropriate.

A statement of desire objecting to the certification was received after the terminal date and was not supported by any appearances at the hearing, so it was not considered.

For the first bargaining unit, the union demonstrated 56.41% membership support.

The Board declined the respondent's request to direct a representation vote, noting that the union's support exceeded the 55% threshold and no special circumstances warranted a vote.

A certificate was issued for the first unit.

The application for the second unit was dismissed as the union had less than 45% support.