H.J.F. Ade

The complainants, employed as punchers in a smelter, refused to return to work after a break, alleging that the work place was unsafe due to excessive heat and the lack of a second fan on their converter.

They were subsequently disciplined by the employer and filed a complaint under The Employees' Health and Safety Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the complainants did not have reasonable cause to believe the work place was unsafe, as the conditions were not abnormal for the operation and the refusal appeared to be based on other factors such as an inherited production mess and a short turn-around shift.

The respondent employer sought reconsideration of a decision certifying the applicant union, alleging that the union's membership evidence was obtained with the support of management officials, contrary to sections 12 and 56 of the Labour Relations Act.

The general manager had initiated the organizing campaign and directed supervisors to assist.

The union subsequently re-signed employees outside the plant to cure the defect.

The Board found that the general manager acted on his own and not in the employer's interests, so the section 12 bar did not apply.

However, given the circumstances of the re-signing and the presence of management, the Board doubted the true wishes of the employees.

The Board revoked the certificate and ordered a representation vote.

The complainant union alleged that the employer terminated six employees contrary to the Labour Relations Act after they engaged in union organizing.

The employer claimed the terminations were the result of a prior business decision to contract out the work.

The union argued that findings of fact from a prior dismissed unlawful lockout application were res judicata.

The Board held that the prior findings were not binding because they were not necessary to the ultimate dismissal of that application.

However, on the evidence, the Board found that the decision to contract out was crystallized only after the employer learned of the union activity, and was therefore motivated at least in part by anti-union animus.

The Board ordered the employees reinstated with compensation.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of dependent contractor owner/operator truck drivers who hauled aggregate from the Canada Crushed Stone quarry.

The drivers had previously worked directly for Canada Crushed Stone but were later required to operate through brokers, including A. Cupido Haulage.

The Board applied the statutory definition of 'dependent contractor' and found that despite the introduction of the brokerage system, the drivers remained economically dependent upon Canada Crushed Stone, which continued to control their day-to-day work, set their rates, and provide the bulk of their work.

The Board concluded that the drivers were dependent contractors of Canada Crushed Stone and constituted an appropriate bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied under sections 2 and 4 of The Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act following the transfer of two sewage treatment plants from the Crown to the City of Timmins.

The applicant, which represented the City's outside workers, argued that the transferred employees should be accreted to its existing bargaining unit.

The Board found that there was no intermingling between the transferred employees and the City's existing employees.

Emphasizing that the purpose of the successor rights legislation is to preserve rather than extinguish bargaining rights, the Board declined to alter the bargaining structure.

The Board declared the City a successor employer and affirmed that the intervener union continued to represent the transferred employees.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a unit of employees of the respondent municipality.

The central issue was whether employees working at the Lakeview Cemetery and the Meaford and St. Vincent Community Centre were employees of the municipality.

The Board found that the Board of Park Management, which manages the cemetery, is a separate corporate entity under The Public Parks Act, and thus its employees are not employees of the municipality.

Conversely, the Board determined that the Committee of Management for the community centre, established under The Community Recreation Centres Act, has no separate legal status as an employer.

Consequently, the employees at the community centre are employees of the municipality.

The respondent was directed to file an amended list of bargaining unit employees including those at the community centre.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer failed to bargain in good faith during negotiations for a first collective agreement, specifically regarding the issue of union security.

The employer took a firm position against compulsory dues check-off, offering only voluntary check-off.

The Board found that the employer had engaged in rational and informed discussion and was entitled to take a firm position on union security.

The complaint was dismissed, with one Board member dissenting on the grounds that the employer's rigid stance on union security constituted surface bargaining.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for employees of the respondent in Metropolitan Toronto.

The parties disputed the geographic scope of the bargaining unit, with the respondent seeking to restrict it to a single location.

The Board applied its general practice of describing bargaining units on a municipality-wide basis, as all employees in the included classifications worked at one location.

The Board excluded students employed during the school vacation period but included part-time employees.

A Labour Relations Officer was appointed to inquire into the duties of dispatchers and call takers.

The Board granted interim certification pending the final resolution of the bargaining unit composition.

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging the employer discharged and laid off ten employees for their involvement in a union organizing campaign, and sought certification without a vote under section 7a of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the employer's explanations for the terminations unconvincing and concluded the actions were motivated by anti-union animus, violating section 58 of the Act.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the employees with compensation.

Furthermore, finding that the employer's unlawful conduct made it unlikely that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained through a representation vote, the Board granted automatic certification to the union.

The Minister of Labour referred questions to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the designation of employee and employer bargaining agencies in the construction industry, following the affiliation of the Lathers' International Union with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.

The Board found that the previous separate designations for the Lathers and their corresponding employers were no longer effective in either a legal or industrial relations sense.

The Board concluded that separate designations for acoustic and drywall workers were not appropriate, and recommended that all affected parties be included within a single set of comprehensive designations to reflect the consolidation of bargaining rights and avoid jurisdictional disputes.

The applicant, a council of trade unions, applied for certification in the construction industry.

The Board held a hearing to determine whether the applicant was a council of trade unions and whether its constituent locals were trade unions under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board reviewed the charters and by-laws and found that the locals were trade unions and the applicant was a council of trade unions with the appropriate authority to act as a bargaining agent.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of operating engineers employed by the respondent construction company.

The parties disputed whether four off-site employees should be included in the bargaining unit for the purpose of the count.

The Board found that three of the employees were commonly associated in their work with on-site employees and included them in the count.

The fourth employee was classified as a cement truck driver and excluded.

As the union had unchallenged evidence of membership for more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit, the Board granted the application for certification without a representation vote.

The applicant union sought certification under section 7a of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively a new representation vote, following a lost vote.

The union alleged employer misconduct, including a physical altercation and threats, and irregularities in the vote's conduct, notably the employer acting as his own scrutineer.

The Board found the employer's conduct did not warrant automatic certification under section 7a.

However, the Board set aside the representation vote and ordered a new one, concluding that the employer's presence as a scrutineer, combined with previous threats and the seating arrangements during the vote, made it unlikely that the ballot accurately reflected the employees' true wishes.

The applicants sought a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union argued the application was untimely because a conciliation officer had not been appointed.

The Board found the application was timely.

However, the Board dismissed the application because it could not be satisfied that the statement of desire was voluntary.

An employee who was reasonably perceived by other employees as having a special relationship with management was present during the origination and circulation of the statement, which tainted its voluntariness.

The complainant union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 81 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that a grievance filed by a rival union against a general contractor regarding a subcontracting clause constituted a demand for work assignment.

The Board dismissed the complaint, holding that the mere filing of a grievance against a general contractor does not amount to requiring an employer to assign particular work to persons in a particular trade union within the meaning of section 81(1).

The Board reviewed the legislative history and jurisprudence, concluding that the general contractor is not the 'employer' making the work assignment in this context.

The applicant applied for certification for a bargaining unit of insulators.

The intervener challenged the applicant's status as a trade union under section 1(1)(n) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board examined the purported merger between the Christian Trade Unions of Canada and the Christian Labour Association of Canada, finding that the merger was not validly executed according to the requirements set out in Astgen v. Smith.

Furthermore, the applicant local had not properly adopted the new constitution and lacked duly elected officers.

Consequently, the Board found the applicant was not a viable entity or a trade union within the meaning of the Act, and dismissed the application.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of a business occurred when the respondent acquired a lease for a retail food store previously operated by Dominion Stores Limited.

The premises had been closed and vacant for over 11 months before the respondent occupied them.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the transfer of the lease constituted a 'sale' within the extended meaning of the Act, it did not amount to a continuation of Dominion's business.

As there was no continuation of the predecessor's business, the application for successor rights was dismissed.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer failed to apply the province-wide excavation collective agreement.

At the hearing, the employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that it was bound by a different 'road builders' agreement and that other employers and unions bound by that agreement were entitled to notice of the proceedings because the Board's interpretation might affect them commercially.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that strangers to a collective agreement are not entitled as of right to intervene in a section 112a proceeding, and declined to exercise its discretion to add them, as doing so would needlessly encumber the grievance process.