H. Simon

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer failed to comply with a previous Board order directing the parties to bargain in good faith.

During a mediation meeting, the respondent tabled new proposals and insisted they be resolved before any economic issues or the union's prior proposals could be discussed.

The Board found that the respondent's insistence on limiting discussion to its own pre-conditions restricted the rational, informed discussion required by the duty to bargain in good faith.

The Board concluded the respondent failed to comply with the previous order and directed the filing of the determination with the Supreme Court for enforcement.

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 union filed a complaint alleging the employer committed an unfair labour practice by withholding union dues deducted from employees' wages following an illegal strike.

The employer argued its actions were permitted under the collective agreement as a 'cancellation of dues deduction' penalty.

The Board found that continuing to deduct dues but holding them in escrow did not constitute a cancellation of dues deduction.

The Board held that the employer's unilateral impounding of union dues interfered with the administration of the trade union, violating section 56 of the Labour Relations Act, and ordered the employer to remit the withheld dues with interest.

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 union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated section 56 of the Labour Relations Act by withholding union dues following an illegal strike.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the Board should defer to a board of arbitration already established to hear a related grievance, and that the union delayed in filing the complaint.

The Board declined to defer to arbitration, finding the complaint extended beyond the interpretation of the collective agreement and involved allegations of interference with the union's capacity to act as bargaining agent.

The Board also dismissed the delay objection and directed the matter to proceed on the merits.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied for certification.

The Board had to determine whether the Home Care Administrator and the Family Planning Co-ordinator should be included in the bargaining unit or excluded under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act for exercising managerial functions.

The Board found that the Home Care Administrator exercised significant managerial authority, including budgetary control and hiring of therapists, and was therefore excluded.

Conversely, the Family Planning Co-ordinator's role relied on professional knowledge rather than managerial authority, and she was included in the bargaining unit.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer bargained in bad faith contrary to section 14 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer had withdrawn from a joint bargaining structure at the last minute, accepted a settlement for its Montreal plant but not its Bramalea plant, and resurrected a previously settled issue regarding manning after a six-month strike.

The Board found no bad faith in these actions, as the employer was entitled to evaluate its economic interests and reappraise its position.

However, the Board found the employer bargained in bad faith with a second local by refusing to negotiate its proposals until a settlement was reached with the first local.

The employer was ordered to meet and bargain in good faith with the second local.