G. O. Shamanski

The applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of a business occurred when the Town of Ajax terminated its transit operation contract with Charterways Transportation Limited and directly hired the majority of the former Charterways employees to continue operating the transit system.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that Charterways' business consisted primarily of providing a skilled workforce, which was its most valuable asset.

By acquiring this workforce, the Town transferred to itself an essential element of Charterways' business.

The Board concluded that a sale of a business had transpired within the meaning of section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

Furthermore, the Board held that section 64.1(1) applied because the sale occurred on or after January 1, 1993, allowing for successorship from a federal to a provincial undertaking.

The applicant union alleged that a sale of a business occurred between Kimberly Clark and Long Lake Forest Products Inc. regarding a sawmill operation that had been closed for over seven years.

The responding party argued that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights and that the transaction was merely a sale of assets, not a going concern.

The Board found that the union had not abandoned its bargaining rights, although no collective agreement was in force at the time of the sale.

The Board concluded that the transaction constituted a sale of a business under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act, as the purchaser acquired the capacity to carry on the predecessor's business, including the mill and access to wood supply.

The applicant union sought interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, requesting the interim reinstatement of a key inside union organizer who was discharged shortly after commencing organizing activities.

The employer argued the discharge was for cause, citing the employee's unauthorized removal of a confidential memo.

The Board applied its two-step test for interim relief, finding that the union had established an arguable case of an unfair labour practice.

In balancing the harm, the Board concluded that the potential chilling effect on the organizing campaign outweighed the employer's concerns about a breach of trust, particularly given the early stage of the campaign.

The Board ordered the interim reinstatement of the employee and the posting of a notice, but declined to order interim compensation.

The applicant employer sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to restrict picketing at one of its stores by striking employees from other locations.

The employer argued the picketing breached the common law and caused undue disruption.

The majority of the Board dismissed the application, finding that the balance of harm favoured the union, given the delay in bringing the application, the imminent conclusion of the main hearing, and the significant impact an interim order would have on the employees' statutory right to picket.

A dissenting member would have granted the interim relief.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a deemed sale of a business occurred under section 64.2 of the Labour Relations Act when the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place leased a building to Medieval Times.

Medieval Times subsequently contracted out cleaning services to a non-unionized company, whereas the union had previously cleaned the building for the Board of Governors.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the transaction constituted a deemed sale of a business, finding that the 'premises' encompassed the entirety of Exhibition Place, that the employer had ceased in part to provide services at those premises, and that substantially similar services were subsequently provided under the direction of another employer.

Medieval Times was declared bound by the union's notice to bargain.

The intervenor, ADM-Agri Industries Limited, requested reconsideration of a 1991 Board decision certifying the applicant union for employees of McCarthy Milling Limited, arguing the Board lacked constitutional jurisdiction because the flour mill was a federal work.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the reconsideration request.

The Board granted the union's motion, declining to entertain the reconsideration request.

The Board noted that the union and ADM had subsequently negotiated a collective agreement, meaning the bargaining rights from the original certificate had merged into the agreement.

Reconsidering the 1991 certificate would not resolve the ongoing constitutional issues between the union and ADM, and the Board declined to address complex constitutional questions in the context of a delayed reconsideration request.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the responding employer.

The dispute arose when the employer assigned mechanic's work to an improver helper who had passed his exams, without first obtaining a referral from the union's hiring hall.

When the union refused to issue a mechanic's card due to unemployed mechanics on the out-of-work list, the employer deemed the employee to have resigned for refusing the assignment.

The Board held that the employer violated the hiring hall provisions of the collective agreement by failing to use the union as the first source of job applicants before reclassifying the employee.

The grievance was allowed, and the employee was found to have been terminated without just cause.

The unfair labour practice complaint was dismissed.

The union referred two grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the employers violated the provincial collective agreement by refusing to pay a $70.00 per diem travel allowance to employees working in a designated geographic zone.

The employers argued that the allowance was only payable if employees incurred overnight accommodation expenses, and that they could require proof of actual expenses.

The Board held that the plain language of the collective agreement entitled employees to the allowance whenever they worked a day in the zone, regardless of whether they incurred accommodation expenses.

The agreement only permitted a reduction in the allowance if the employer and the union agreed.

The grievances were allowed.

The applicant union applied for certification and the parties engaged in a waiver process to resolve outstanding issues without a hearing.

The union agreed to the employee list without challenging the exclusion of four Regional Managers, as it was in a certifiable position regardless.

Later, the union sought to challenge their exclusion under section 108(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that parties are bound by agreements made during the waiver procedure absent extraordinary circumstances.

The union was not permitted to resile from its agreement on the employee list, and the employer was not permitted to resile from its agreement on the geographic scope of the bargaining unit.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union sought an interim order declaring it the successor union and exclusive bargaining agent for employees in over 200 pending successor rights applications.

The applications arose from a massive inter-union dispute following the purported merger of various Ontario locals of the RWDSU with the Steelworkers, which was contested by the RWDSU International and the UFCW.

The dispute caused widespread confusion and collective bargaining paralysis, prompting employers and the Minister of Labour to seek clarification on which union to deal with.

The Board granted the interim order, declaring the Steelworkers as the interim exclusive bargaining agent to preserve orderly labour relations and allow the collective bargaining process to function until the main applications are resolved.

The union applied for certification to represent security guards employed by the responding party.

The parties disagreed on the description of the bargaining unit.

The union proposed a municipality-wide unit, while the employer argued for a site-specific unit limited to the single location where it currently operated in the municipality.

The Board followed its established practice for single-location operations and determined that a municipality-wide bargaining unit was appropriate.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the bargaining rights of the CAW.

The CAW moved that the Board exercise its discretion under section 105(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act to refuse to entertain the application and to impose a ten-month bar, arguing that a prior termination application had recently been dismissed and the union had not had a reasonable opportunity to bargain.

The Board found that the employees' wishes had been tested in the prior application and that the union had not had a reasonable opportunity to bargain since its dismissal.

The Board exercised its discretion to refuse to entertain the application but declined to impose a bar, noting that the applicant was not the unsuccessful applicant in the prior proceeding.

The Ontario Sheet Metal Workers filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint in response to a grievance by the Carpenters claiming work related to the installation of sheet metal siding onto wood at a Sarnia job site.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board confirmed the employer's assignment of the work to the Sheet Metal Workers, finding that the nature of the material (sheet metal) was more significant than the base (wood), and that employer practice and efficiency favoured the Sheet Metal Workers.

The Board also made several procedural rulings, including excluding area practice evidence from the Carpenters due to a failure to provide adequate particulars, and refusing to terminate the proceedings after the Carpenters withdrew their underlying grievance.

The applicant union alleged that the responding school board violated the statutory freeze provision under section 81 of the Labour Relations Act by altering the wages and benefits of occasional teachers following certification.

The school board argued that the teachers in question were probationary, not occasional, and thus not covered by the freeze.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the teachers were occasional teachers within the meaning of the Education Act and the collective agreement.

The Board declared that the school board violated the statutory freeze by altering their terms and conditions of employment and ordered full compensation.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) brought an application under the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act, alleging that a contract between the Ontario Science Centre and a packaging company for the construction of crates constituted a transfer of part of the Crown's undertaking.

The union argued that its bargaining rights should follow the work performed by the subcontractor.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the packaging company had merely acquired the right to supply goods and services to the Crown using its own undertaking, which did not amount to a transfer of part of the Crown's undertaking.

The applicant union filed a complaint alleging that the respondent employer violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by bargaining in bad faith.

The parties had previously signed a voluntary recognition agreement defining the bargaining unit.

During negotiations for a collective agreement, the employer insisted on a significantly different scope and recognition clause and bargained the issue to impasse.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that while parties may discuss altering a bargaining unit, pressing the issue to impasse violates the duty to bargain in good faith.

The Board directed the employer to withdraw its proposed clause and confirm the agreed-upon bargaining unit description.

The respondent employer requested that the Board revoke its earlier certification decision and issue a new one after reviewing late-filed sample signatures.

The Board noted that while sample signatures are an important safeguard, expedition is crucial in labour relations matters.

The signatures were filed 19 days after the terminal date.

The Board declined to reconsider its decision, emphasizing the need for timely processing of certification applications.

The Operative Plasterers' and Cement Masons' International Association, Local 598 requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision that dismissed its unfair labour practice complaint against Metro Concrete Floors and determined voter eligibility in a certification application by the Labourers' International Union, Local 506.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no obvious error, no new evidence, and that Local 598 had a full opportunity to make representations at the original hearing.

The Board also declined to apply a new voter eligibility practice retroactively to a case where the vote had already been taken.

The respondent Steinberg Inc. obtained an ex parte order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) from the Quebec Superior Court staying all proceedings against it.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board considered whether this stay order applied to ongoing unfair labour practice and related employer proceedings before the Board.

The Board held that the broad language of the CCAA and the court order encompassed its adjudicative processes, notwithstanding the remedial nature of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board further held that the proceedings could not be severed to continue against the co-respondent A&P unless the applicants withdrew their complaints against Steinberg.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint and an application for a declaration of an unlawful lock-out, alleging the employer threatened to move part of its operations to a new location not covered by the collective agreement unless the union agreed to concessions.

The employer subsequently moved the Packaged Gas plant to a new location in Oakville.

The Board found that the scope clause of the existing collective agreement, which covered all employees at the employer's plant in Oakville, applied to the new facility.

Furthermore, the Board held that the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith by failing to disclose its plans for technological change and relocation during the recent round of collective bargaining when specifically asked by the union.