G. Gail Brent

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated the Labour Relations Act by contracting out its sheeting operation without disclosing its intention to do so during collective bargaining.

The Board found that the employer had not made a firm decision to contract out during negotiations, but rather was exploring options to minimize losses from waste material.

The Board concluded there was no duty to disclose unsolicited information about contracting out under these circumstances.

Furthermore, the decision to contract out was motivated by genuine business considerations, not anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of office, clerical, and technical employees.

The parties disputed the inclusion of several positions.

The Board excluded the executive secretaries to the Vice-Presidents of Research and Development and Manufacturing, finding they were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

The Board also excluded product managers, the data processing manager, and the manager of laboratory/quality assurance, finding they exercised managerial functions.

The traffic manager, credit manager, and purchasing agent were included in the unit.

As the union filed membership evidence for less than 55% of the determined bargaining unit, the Board ordered a representation vote.

The applicant employees applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

Although the employees initiated the petition independently, the employer subsequently provided financial assistance to the employees to attend the Board hearing in Toronto.

The Board found that this financial assistance constituted employer interference under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act, as it aligned the employer with the employees seeking termination.

Consequently, the Board could not rely on the petition as a voluntary expression of the employees' wishes and dismissed the application.

The union alleged the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by refusing to implement a first collective agreement awarded by a board of arbitration.

The employer argued the agreement was a nullity due to the Inflation Restraint Act.

The Board held that while the compensation plan within the agreement was of no effect under the Inflation Restraint Act, the remainder of the collective agreement remained valid and binding.

The Board directed the employer to implement the non-compensation provisions of the agreement.

The complainants alleged they were indefinitely laid off because of their support for a union during an organizing campaign, contrary to sections 66 and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer argued the layoffs were strictly due to the loss of a major assembly contract with General Motors.

The Board found no evidence of an organized plan to protect anti-union employees or any anti-union animus connected to the layoffs.

The employer successfully demonstrated that the layoffs were motivated by legitimate business reasons.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant union and two registered nurses alleged that the respondent nursing home laid off the nurses due to anti-union animus, contrary to sections 64 and 66 of the Labour Relations Act, and that the layoffs violated the statutory freeze under section 13 of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The Board found that the layoffs were necessitated by a Ministry directive to transfer extended care residents, reducing the required nursing hours.

The decision on whom to lay off was made by the respondent's solicitor based on seniority, without knowledge of union membership.

The Board concluded there was no anti-union animus and that the employer was permitted to implement layoffs during the freeze period to respond to legitimate business needs, as there was no established pattern for layoffs.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer bargained in bad faith by failing to disclose its plans to change the role of a home for the aged and construct a new facility.

However, the union learned of these plans months before it signed a memorandum of settlement and a collective agreement.

The employer requested that the bad faith bargaining complaint be struck out.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to hear the complaint, finding that because the union had ample notice of the true state of affairs before concluding the collective agreement, it was not deprived of the opportunity to respond in bargaining.

As the complaint did not disclose a breach of the Act on its face, it was dismissed.

The complainant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Act.

The union and employer had agreed that an error was made in interpreting the collective agreement regarding a job posting during a layoff, resulting in the complainant losing her position and returning to the status quo.

The Board found that the union acted reasonably to correct a mistaken interpretation of the collective agreement and did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a union member, was fined $1,000 by his union for supporting a rival union's displacement campaign.

He filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging violations of sections 3 and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

At the hearing, the complainant's counsel explicitly withdrew any reliance on section 80(2)(b), which specifically prohibits unions from imposing penalties on persons for exercising rights under the Act.

The Board found that while the complainant had a right to participate in the rival union's campaign, the mere imposition of a disciplinary fine did not constitute 'intimidation or coercion' within the meaning of section 70.

Because the complainant had abandoned the section 80(2)(b) claim, and the Board refused a post-hearing request to reopen the case to argue it, the complaint was dismissed.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent hospital breached the Labour Relations Act by dealing directly with employees.

The hospital had asked certain nurses to sign forms agreeing to work scheduled shifts at their regular rate of pay.

The Board found that the forms did not alter any working conditions or terms of employment established by an interest arbitration award.

There was no evidence that the hospital refused to recognize the union, interfered with employee rights, or discriminated against any employee.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant, an employee at Mohawk College, applied for an exemption from paying union dues to the respondent trade union on the basis of his religious beliefs.

The applicant objected to the union's failure to acknowledge God and its support for the right to strike.

Applying a subjective test of sincerity, the Board found that the applicant's beliefs were sincerely held, religious in nature, and the cause of his objection.

The application for exemption was granted.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by paying incentive workers their day rate, rather than their average hourly earnings, during periods when work was suspended due to unsafe air contamination.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer treated the situation as 'idle time' under the collective agreement and did not impose a penalty on the employees because they sought compliance with the Act.

A dissenting member would have found the failure to pay average hourly earnings constituted a pecuniary penalty.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent hospital violated the statutory freeze period under the Labour Relations Act and the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act by announcing a reorganization of its intravenous and outpatient blood collection services.

The reorganization would require nurses who previously worked straight days to rotate between two shifts.

The Board found that the expired collective agreement contained an express management rights clause permitting the hospital to determine work schedules and hours of work.

The Board held that the exercise of this express right during the freeze period did not constitute a violation, as it maintained the collective bargaining status quo.

The complaint was dismissed.

The Board assessed compensation owed to an employee previously found to have been unlawfully discharged.

The respondent employer argued the employee failed to mitigate his damages by not seeking work in his specific trade as a spring maker.

The Board found the employee acted reasonably in seeking alternative work and attempting to start a business initially, but failed to take reasonable steps to find work in his trade during a subsequent four-month period.

Compensation for lost wages was reduced by the amount the employee likely could have earned during that four-month period, resulting in an award of $11,389.44 plus benefits and interest.

The complainant alleged he was discharged contrary to section 24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after raising concerns about frayed electrical cables on vacuum cleaners.

The Board found that the complainant's communications with management primarily focused on criticizing his supervisor's competence rather than raising specific safety hazards.

The Board concluded the discharge was motivated by the complainant's insubordinate conduct and his inappropriate method of communicating complaints via a client's log book, which embarrassed the employer, rather than any attempt to enforce the Act.

The complaint was dismissed.