G. O. Shamanski

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

The Board directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be conducted among the employees in the voting constituency, which matched the incumbent union's existing bargaining unit.

The Board also directed that the applicant and incumbent unions be provided with copies of the voters list, over the respondent employer's objection.

During an application for certification, the objectors argued that the applicant union's charges of employer misconduct and its request for certification without a vote under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act were not filed promptly as required by Rule 72.

The Board held that the union's obligation to file particulars regarding the voluntariness of employee petitions arose only when it was officially notified of the petitions by the Board, and the union acted promptly thereafter.

The Board also declined to strike the section 8 claim, noting that its timing did not cause any adjournment, prejudice, or delay.

The applicant union applied for certification and a pre-hearing representation vote was held, resulting in a tie.

One segregated ballot was cast by an employee whose inclusion in the bargaining unit was initially challenged by the union but supported by the employer.

Before a Labour Relations Officer could inquire into the employee's duties, the union withdrew its challenge, but the employer simultaneously sought to change its position to exclude the employee.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that a party may not raise new challenges to the composition of the bargaining unit after the vote has been counted, as this would encourage gerrymandering.

The employee was included in the unit, but because counting his single segregated ballot would reveal his preference, the Board directed the taking of a second representation vote.

The applicant union filed an application under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine the employee status of an individual.

The respondent employer objected to the appointment of a Board Officer on the basis that the individual had been terminated for alleged theft prior to the filing of the application.

The Board held that since the individual was not employed by the respondent at the time the application was filed, there was no current question as to whether the person was an employee.

The Board cancelled the Board Officer's appointment and adjourned the matter sine die for one year, pending the resolution of the individual's employment status through adjudication or negotiation.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer interfered with its organizing campaign by laying off 14 employees, granting a sudden wage increase, and engaging in intimidation.

The Board found that the employer's actions, particularly the layoffs and wage increase, were motivated by anti-union animus and violated the Labour Relations Act.

Concluding that the employer's misconduct created a climate where the true wishes of the employees could not be ascertained, the Board exercised its discretion under section 8 to certify the union and ordered the reinstatement of the laid-off employees with compensation.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties agreed on the list of employees and their last day of work, but disputed whether membership cards signed by two permanently laid-off individuals after their last day worked should be counted.

As there were no facts in dispute, the Board directed the parties to file written submissions on the issue rather than convening a hearing.

The intervener, Local 293, requested reconsideration of a Board decision directing that the name of Local 1230-10 appear on a pre-hearing representation vote ballot instead of Local 293.

Local 293 argued it was the incumbent union and that an agreement existed to place its name on the ballot.

The Board dismissed the request, noting that pre-hearing votes are designed to be expeditious and that holding a hearing prior to the vote would defeat this purpose.

The Board concluded that the applicant's position regarding the ballot structure should be favoured given the risks involved, and that the successor rights dispute between the locals would be determined after the vote.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent electricians and electricians' apprentices employed by the respondent in the construction industry.

The respondent argued the application should be barred due to a recently dismissed application and challenged the membership evidence.

The Board found no grounds to bar the application, accepted the new Form 80 declarations and membership evidence, and declined to order a representation vote.

The Board granted certification to the applicant.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent construction labourers employed by the respondent.

The parties disputed whether three employees performing cleanup work at a recently purchased building were construction labourers.

The Board found that the cleanup work was not closely connected to planned renovations and therefore was not construction work.

Having resolved the bargaining unit composition, the Board found the union had the requisite membership support and issued certificates for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector and all other sectors in the appropriate geographic areas.

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation applied for certification to represent occasional teachers employed by three school boards.

The parties initially agreed on a bargaining unit description that excluded employees in existing bargaining units.

The Board revised the exclusionary language to clarify that the unit excludes persons who, when employed as substitutes, are 'teachers' under the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, reflecting the mutual exclusivity of the statutory regimes.

In the North York application, an employee's request to set aside the representation vote due to low turnout and short notice was dismissed, as notice was adequate and low turnout alone does not invalidate a vote.

In the Wellington application, the Board declined to dismiss the application based on a previously withdrawn application and directed the counting of ballots.

Certificates were issued for the Sault Ste.

Marie and North York units.

The applicant union filed ten applications for certification concerning truck and transport drivers employed by various respondents, along with a related employer application under subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The union requested pre-hearing representation votes.

Several respondents objected to the votes, arguing that the appropriate bargaining unit and employer identity could not be determined until the related employer application was resolved.

The Board directed that pre-hearing representation votes be conducted in ten separate voting constituencies, with ballots segregated where disputes existed regarding the inclusion of certain individuals or locations.

The Board held that the purpose of the pre-hearing vote procedure is to test employee wishes promptly, and that issues regarding the utility or effect of the votes would be determined at a subsequent hearing.

The applicant employee sought a declaration terminating the respondent union's bargaining rights under section 59(1) of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the union failed to give notice to bargain within sixty days following certification.

The union conceded the notice fell outside the sixty-day period but provided evidence of its active involvement in representing the employees, including filing unfair labour practice complaints and preparing complex bargaining proposals for the taxi industry.

The Board found the union had not 'slept' on its rights and was actively fulfilling its obligations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant trade union sought certification for a unit of employees of the respondent, a company that prepares customers' materials for mailing via Canada Post.

The respondent argued that its labour relations fell under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867, as its operations were an integral part of the postal service.

The Board rejected this argument, finding that the respondent acted as a mail service broker and its operations were not an essential or integral part of Canada Post's core federal undertaking.

Having asserted provincial jurisdiction, the Board found the proposed bargaining unit appropriate and, based on the membership evidence, issued a certificate to the applicant.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer violated the collective agreement by employing non-union members to perform catalyst discharging and loading work.

The respondent failed to appear at the hearing, and a late request for an adjournment was denied due to the need for expedition in construction grievances.

The Board found the respondent violated the union security clause and ordered it to pay $124,176.96 in compensation to the union in trust for the lost wages and benefits.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board challenging a three-week suspension imposed on the grievor for insubordination and the use of abusive language towards management.

The employer relied on the culminating incident and several past incidents to justify the penalty.

The Board found that the employer improperly relied on past incidents that did not form part of the grievor's formal disciplinary record.

However, given the grievor's two prior written warnings and the severity of his insubordination, the Board exercised its discretion under section 44(9) of the Labour Relations Act to substitute a ten-day suspension for the original three-week penalty.

The applicant, Independent Local 385, applied under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration that it acquired the bargaining rights of its predecessor by reason of a transfer of jurisdiction following its disaffiliation from the Canadian Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers.

The respondents argued that the parent union, not the local, held the bargaining rights and that the local disaffiliated without them.

The Board found that the local union had held the bargaining rights for over a decade and retained them upon disaffiliation.

Because the applicant already held the bargaining rights and its identity continued unchanged, it was not a successor trade union.

The application was therefore dismissed.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether four individuals were employees.

The respondent employer argued the application should be dismissed without a hearing on the merits because the parties had previously agreed during a certification application that the individuals exercised managerial functions and were excluded from the bargaining unit.

The union contended the agreement was only for the purposes of the count.

The Board found that the prior decision recorded an agreement on employee status, which triggered the Westmount Hospital policy restricting subsequent applications.

The Board declined to go behind the prior decision and dismissed the application.

The employer filed an unfair labour practice complaint and an application for consent to prosecute the union and its counsel, alleging they misled an arbitrator to obtain an adjournment.

The employer sought to consolidate these matters with earlier complaints filed by the union.

The Board refused consolidation, noting the matters were discrete and consolidation would conflict with the union counsel's role.

The Board then dismissed the employer's complaint and application without a full hearing, finding them to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process designed to harass the union and gain a tactical advantage in other pending matters.

The applicant union sought a direction under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act allowing access to the employer's property to organize employees.

The employer and the incumbent union opposed the order.

The Board adjourned the hearing to be heard alongside a similar application by another rival union.

The Board also denied the incumbent union's request to intervene, finding that an access order would not detrimentally affect its legal rights.

In an application for certification, the intervener union filed allegations of misconduct.

The respondent employer brought a preliminary motion demanding further particulars of the allegations.

The Board reviewed the legal and labour relations considerations for requiring particulars, noting the need for natural justice and avoiding prejudicial delay.

The Board directed the intervener to provide specific particulars regarding dates, times, places, and persons involved in the alleged meetings and incidents, and adjourned the hearing on the merits.