G. O. Shamanski

The applicant union sought leave to withdraw its application for certification after entering into a voluntary recognition agreement with the respondent employer.

An affected employee objected, requesting that the Board continue to address outstanding issues and require a supervised vote.

The Board noted that it would not require an applicant to pursue an application it did not wish to pursue, and dismissed the application without a bar.

The applicant union requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision that found three Bindery Supervisors did not exercise managerial functions and should be included in the bargaining unit.

The union sought to introduce evidence from one of the supervisors, obtained during a subsequent phase of the hearing, arguing it contradicted the Board's findings.

The Board dismissed the request, holding that the evidence was available during the initial phase of the hearing and could have been adduced with due diligence.

A dissenting member would have granted the reconsideration, arguing the Board has a statutory obligation to determine the appropriate bargaining unit regardless of when the evidence is presented.

The applicant union applied for certification by way of a pre-hearing vote.

The respondent employer submitted its material, including the Employee List, late on the terminal date.

The applicant requested to review the list before the scheduled meeting with the Board Officer.

The respondent objected, citing concerns about abuse of process because the applicant had previously withdrawn a similar application.

The Board ruled that the Employee List must be disclosed to the applicant prior to the meeting, noting that early disclosure is necessary to avoid unnecessary time and expense, and that concerns about abuse of process can be addressed if a subsequent application is filed.

The applicants and complainants brought a motion seeking a direction from the Board that the respondent Steinberg produce a witness to testify regarding an allegation of a sale of business under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondents argued that the statutory duty under section 64(13) was satisfied because the co-respondent, A&P, had produced a witness.

The Board rejected this argument and directed Steinberg to adduce viva voce testimony of all facts within its knowledge material to the allegation.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer engaged in surface bargaining and sought to undermine the union by demanding significant wage and benefit concessions.

The employer maintained that its demands were a legitimate response to severe financial losses and a need to improve productivity.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer was engaged in lawful hard bargaining.

The Board held that the duty to bargain in good faith does not preclude an employer from using its bargaining power to achieve a collective agreement on its own terms, even if those terms involve substantial concessions, provided the employer genuinely intends to conclude an agreement.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint and a related employer application under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act following the employer's decision to introduce desktop publishing technology at The Mississauga News, which effectively closed the unionized composing room at the production division.

The Board dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint, finding the technological change was motivated by legitimate economic and business reasons rather than anti-union animus.

However, the Board granted the related employer declaration, finding that the production division and The Mississauga News carried on related activities under common control and direction, and declared The Mississauga News bound to the composing room collective agreement.

The respondent employer requested that the Board reconsider its 1986 decision certifying the union, arguing that the employer is engaged in radio communications and falls within federal jurisdiction.

The Board declined to reconsider the decision, noting that the employer participated in the original certification application without raising the issue, and five years had passed since the certificate was issued.

The respondent employer requested an adjournment of an unfair labour practice complaint hearing because its key witness, a lawyer involved in related proceedings, was unavailable.

The Board noted that the witness had not been summonsed by the respondent and chose to attend another proceeding.

However, the Board granted the adjournment on the condition that the respondent undertake not to take any reprisals against employees summonsed by the union to attend Board proceedings, and that it remove any disciplinary action already taken against the grievors.

The Board also directed the respondent to post copies of the decision in the workplace.

The applicant union applied for relief under the Labour Relations Act.

After initial delays in scheduling, the Board set five hearing dates in September 1991.

The parties subsequently agreed to adjourn four of the five dates due to scheduling conflicts.

The Board cancelled the agreed-upon dates, directing the matter to proceed on the single remaining date, and warned the parties that further hearing dates would likely not be available until March 1992 due to their conduct.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the respondent employer refused to hire two experienced sheet metal workers because of their union membership.

The Board preferred the evidence of the workers, finding that the employer's owner explicitly told them during a telephone inquiry that he was not hiring unionized sheet metal workers.

The Board held this conduct contravened section 66 of the Labour Relations Act by denying the workers participation in the hiring process due to their union affiliation.

The complaint was allowed and the issue of remedy was remitted to the parties.

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.

The respondent union moved to dismiss the application as untimely because it was filed after a conciliation officer had been appointed.

The intervener employer argued the appointment of the conciliation officer was a nullity due to defective service.

The Board held that administrative defects in service do not invalidate the appointment of a conciliation officer and that the employer had waived any irregularity by participating in conciliation.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant union applied for certification and submitted membership evidence for over 55% of the bargaining unit.

Objecting employees filed a petition opposing the union, and the union subsequently filed counter-petitions reaffirming support.

The Board found both the petition and counter-petitions to be voluntary.

Because the counter-petitions were the last voluntary statement of intention, the Board relied on them to establish the union's support level.

The Board declined to order a representation vote, finding no evidence of misrepresentation, intimidation, or undue influence by the union organizers.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The complainant, a millwright, alleged he was discharged contrary to section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) after refusing to work due to alleged isocyanate exposure.

The employer maintained the discharge was for failing to provide satisfactory medical evidence for an extended absence, triggering an automatic loss of seniority under the collective agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found no breach of section 24(1), concluding the discharge was not a reprisal for the work refusal but resulted from the unauthorized absence.

The Board further declined to exercise its discretion under section 24(7) to substitute a lesser penalty, noting the complainant's work refusal was not bona fide and he had abused the statutory rights provided by the OHSA.

The applicant union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer took uncompromising bargaining positions and failed to make reasonable efforts to conclude an agreement.

During the hearing, the Board ruled that documents passed between the parties through a conciliation officer were inadmissible under section 111(2) of the Act.

On the merits, the Board dismissed the application, finding that the breakdown in negotiations was caused by the union's intransigence, including its insistence on an expanded recognition clause and refusal to consider the employer's proposals, rather than any unreasonable conduct by the employer.

During a hearing into allegations of bad faith bargaining, the union sought to call a former plant manager as a reply witness.

The manager had previously testified for the employer but was subsequently discharged.

The union argued he might now provide a more candid version of events, though counsel had not spoken to him to confirm this.

The majority of the Board declined to allow the evidence, ruling it was not proper reply evidence but rather an attempt to reopen cross-examination on a fishing expedition.

One Board member dissented and would have received the testimony subject to weight.

In an application for termination of bargaining rights, a representation vote was held and two ballots were segregated because the employees had been discharged prior to the application.

The discharged employees had grieved their terminations, with arbitration pending.

The applicant and the employer argued the ballots should not be counted or a new vote should be held, while the union argued the Board should await the arbitration outcome.

The majority of the Board directed that the disposition of the termination application must await the outcome of the arbitration proceedings to ensure the result reflects the true wishes of the employees.

A dissenting member would have discarded the segregated ballots and disclosed the vote results immediately.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The respondent employer and an objecting employee coalition opposed the request, arguing that an earlier certification application by the applicant remained outstanding and that many of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit exercised managerial functions.

The Board directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be conducted, finding that the statutory prerequisites were met and that the outstanding issues regarding the composition of the bargaining unit and the prior application could be resolved after the vote.

The Board also directed a separate vote for professional engineers to determine if they wished to be included in a bargaining unit with other employees.

One Board member dissented, stating he would not permit the application to proceed while the first application remained active.

The Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers' Conference and Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 539 sought reconsideration of a procedural direction by the Board.

The Board had directed that the issue of whether the Carpenters held bargaining rights with Vic West Steel be determined in a section 124 grievance proceeding before proceeding with the Sheet Metal Workers' section 91 jurisdictional dispute complaint.

The Board declined to reconsider its decision, finding that resolving the bargaining rights issue first could significantly alter the perspective of the jurisdictional dispute and potentially reduce costs and delay.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of security guards.

The sole issue was whether a security supervisor, Mr. Batchelor, should be excluded from the unit under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act because he exercised managerial functions.

The Board found that Mr. Batchelor functioned as a 'lead hand' rather than a manager, as he did not have independent authority to hire, fire, set schedules, or approve overtime.

The Board concluded he was an employee within the meaning of the Act and included him in the bargaining unit.

The Board also dismissed the employer's request to reconsider an interim evidentiary ruling.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of ballots were cast in favour of the applicant union, the Board noted that the employer failed to post Form 70 and the Officer's Report in a timely manner.

The Board directed the employer to post the decision and provided a fifteen-day period for any party to file a statement of desire to make representations regarding the vote or the report.

If no statement is received, a certificate will issue to the applicant.