H. Simon

The applicant, a university professor, sought a religious exemption from the compulsory dues checkoff provisions in the collective agreement between the university and the faculty association under section 47 of the Labour Relations Act.

He argued that his non-conformist Protestant Christian beliefs precluded him from supporting the adversarial nature of a trade union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that while the applicant held sincere religious beliefs, his opposition to the union was actually grounded in his legal analysis of the York University Act and his belief that faculty members are 'academic managers', rather than being caused by his religious convictions.

The applicant union filed a grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act alleging the respondent company failed to remit various benefit payments.

The union sought an order for substitutional service of a subpoena on the respondent's principal, who was evading service.

The Board held that it lacks the statutory authority to order substitutional service of a subpoena or to issue a direction to appear carrying penal consequences without personal service.

The Board outlined the applicant's options to either seek an adjournment to effect personal service or proceed on the merits with available evidence.

The applicant, the sole employee in the bargaining unit, applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

The union argued that a bargaining unit must consist of more than one employee for a termination application to be brought.

The Board rejected this argument, finding that a single employee can apply for termination.

However, the Board dismissed the application because the employer had been actively involved in its inception and preparation, making it impossible to conclude that the application was a truly voluntary expression of the employee's wishes.

The applicant union applied for certification of a part-time support staff unit at the respondent's hospital in Wiarton.

The respondent argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should also include employees at a recently acquired hospital in Lion's Head, citing common administration and a small float team of employees working at both locations.

The Board rejected the respondent's argument, noting its normal practice of defining bargaining units by municipal boundaries and the lack of organizing interest at the Lion's Head facility.

The Board found the Wiarton-only unit appropriate and, satisfied that more than 55% of the employees were union members, ordered a certificate to issue.

The complainants filed a complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding a work assignment dispute at Ontario Hydro's Bruce Generating Station.

The respondents argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicable collective agreements required jurisdictional disputes to be referred to the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board (IJDB).

The complainants contended that the IJDB was no longer operational.

The Board found that while the IJDB was not currently issuing job decisions, its procedures were still operative and the parties were bound by them.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction under section 91(14) of the Act and terminated the proceedings.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent registered and graduate nurses at the respondent's nursing home.

The respondent argued the nurses performed managerial functions and were excluded from the Labour Relations Act under section 1(3)(b).

The Board found that while the nurses exercised professional supervisory and reporting functions, true managerial authority regarding discipline, assessment, scheduling, and hiring rested with the Director of Nursing.

The Board concluded the nurses were employees within the meaning of the Act and granted the certification application.

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 complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices by issuing a written warning to an employee due to his union organizing activities.

The employer maintained that the warning was issued in response to complaints from other employees that the grievor was bothering them and disrupting work.

The Board found that the employer's actions, while perhaps an overreaction, were motivated by the employee complaints and not by anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed, and the Board declined to award costs against the complainant.

The complainant alleged he was discharged by the respondent contrary to section 66(a) of the Labour Relations Act for his union activities.

The respondent claimed the discharge was due to the complainant's involvement in overcharging a client.

The Board found that the respondent's actions, including circumventing the union's bargaining rights and abruptly discharging the complainant shortly before collective bargaining was to begin, demonstrated anti-union animus.

The Board concluded the discharge was tainted by anti-union motivation and ordered the complainant's reinstatement with compensation, subject to a reduction for a brief delay in filing the complaint.

The complainant trade union alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices by withholding a customary annual wage increase from bargaining unit employees during the statutory freeze period, and by engaging in surface bargaining.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer violated section 70 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to implement the wage increase in accordance with its past practice.

The Board also found that the employer violated the duty to bargain in good faith under section 14, and unlawfully interfered with the union's representation rights under sections 56, 58, 59, and 61, by insisting on discriminatory monetary proposals and directly communicating with employees to discourage ratification of a tentative agreement.

The Board ordered the employer to resume bargaining, table a non-discriminatory monetary position, and pay damages for the withheld wage increase.

During a hearing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the complainant union sought leave to cross-examine its own witness, alleging the witness made a prior inconsistent statement and was hostile.

The Board reviewed the distinction between an 'adverse' and 'hostile' witness under section 24 of The Evidence Act and relevant jurisprudence, notably Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company v. Hanes.

The Board held that the complainant could introduce the alleged prior inconsistent statement; if proven, this statement could then be used as a factor to persuade the Board to declare the witness hostile, thereby permitting full cross-examination.

The complainant union alleged that the employer violated the statutory freeze under section 70(1) of the Labour Relations Act by contracting out garbage collection and landfill operations, resulting in the layoff of three employees.

The employer argued it was exercising a pre-existing management right for bona fide business reasons.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer had the right to contract out work prior to the freeze and had substantially progressed towards exercising that right before the freeze began.

The Board concluded that the employer's actions did not constitute an alteration of the terms or conditions of employment contrary to the Act.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer had one part-time employee on the application date but a history of hiring other part-time employees.

The Board varied its previous decision appointing an officer to inquire into community of interest, deciding instead to follow its usual practice of excluding persons regularly employed for not more than twenty-four hours per week from the bargaining unit.

During a hearing for an unfair labour practice complaint, the complainant union subpoenaed a journalist who had written an article about the respondent employer's alleged threat to cancel its animal control contract.

The journalist refused to reveal his sources for the article.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that the identity of the sources was relevant and admissible, and that no journalistic privilege exists in Ontario to protect a reporter's sources.

When the journalist continued to refuse to answer the question, the Board consented to state a case to the Divisional Court for contempt proceedings.

The union applied for certification for two bargaining units.

The union demonstrated membership support in excess of 55% for both units.

However, a group of employees filed statements of desire (petitions) opposing the certification, which included signatures from employees who had previously signed union membership cards.

The Board found that the employer had held a meeting and posted newspaper clippings suggesting that unionization would lead to layoffs and plant closures.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the petitions did not represent a voluntary change of heart, as employees were motivated by a perceived threat to their job security.

The Board gave no weight to the petitions and granted certification for both bargaining units without a representation vote.

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

The Board first determined that the application was timely, finding that an early notice to bargain under section 45 of the Labour Relations Act was effective to terminate the collective agreement on its nominal expiry date, despite not complying with the agreement's specific notice provisions.

However, the Board dismissed the application because it was not satisfied that the employee petition was voluntary.

The Board found that the employer's anti-union conduct, including refusing to adhere to the collective agreement, unilaterally introducing benefits, and granting a wage increase immediately prior to the petition, created an atmosphere where employees could not freely express their wishes.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of plant guards at the respondent's South Plant.

An objecting employee argued for a two-plant unit, but the Board found the single-plant unit appropriate.

Objectors also alleged that a rank-and-file employee who collected membership cards misrepresented that a representation vote would be held.

The Board found that the misrepresentations were isolated incidents, corrected in some cases by union officials, and did not reflect a widespread pattern that would undermine the reliability of the membership evidence, which exceeded 70%.

The Board granted outright certification without a representation vote.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer violated the statutory freeze under section 70(1) of the Labour Relations Act by discharging an employee without just cause, and violated the Occupational Health and Safety Act by discharging another employee for refusing unsafe work.

The Board dismissed the section 70 complaint, holding that the statutory freeze preserves the employer's right to conduct business as before, which includes the right to discharge employees for normal business reasons not motivated by anti-union sentiment.

The Board also dismissed the health and safety complaint, finding that the employee did not have reasonable grounds to believe the work was unsafe and did not actually refuse the work for safety reasons.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote to displace the incumbent union.

A two-way vote was held, resulting in a tie, meaning the applicant failed to secure more than fifty percent of the ballots cast.

Following the vote, the applicant sought to challenge the results, arguing that the incumbent union lacked status, that the vote should not have been held, and that some employees misunderstood the voting notices due to language barriers.

The Board dismissed the application, holding that the applicant could not repudiate the vote after having agreed to the arrangements, waived objections to its regularity, and lost.

The Board also found that the statutory notices were adequate and that language difficulties did not justify setting aside the vote.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The intervener employee association subsequently applied for certification.

The applicant alleged that the employer violated section 12 of the Labour Relations Act by participating in the formation or administration of the intervener or contributing support to it.

The Board found that the employer's plant manager made a speech expressing a clear preference for an employee committee over the applicant union, and that the employer condoned the circulation of a petition for a shop association during working hours.

The Board concluded that the employer supported the creation of the intervener, which constituted "other support" under section 12.

Consequently, the intervener's application for certification was dismissed.

The Board certified the applicant union pending the final resolution of a dispute over the inclusion of Quality Control Technicians in the bargaining unit.

One Board member dissented, finding no evidence of employer support and recommending a representation vote.