Ian C. Springate

The applicant trade union applied for certification, filing membership evidence for more than 55 per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit.

The objectors alleged that union organizers misled employees by stating that the initiation fee was one dollar during the campaign but would be ten dollars later, thereby coercing them into signing membership cards.

The Board found that while one organizer improperly used the two-tier fee structure as a sales tactic, the remaining membership evidence was reliable and still represented more than 55 per cent of the unit.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to order a representation vote and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent the employees of the respondent trucking company.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing its operations extended beyond Ontario and fell under federal jurisdiction.

The Board found that the respondent, an unlicensed carrier hauling exclusively for a single manufacturer using leased trucks bearing the manufacturer's name, was not an independent inter-provincial trucking operation but an integrated delivery arm of the manufacturing concern.

Consequently, the operations fell within provincial jurisdiction.

Finding that the union had the requisite membership support, the Board issued a certificate.

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

An intervening union opposed the application, alleging that the membership evidence was obtained with employer support.

The Board heard uncontradicted evidence that a principal of the respondent employer urged an employee to sign a union card for the applicant.

The Board concluded that the membership evidence did not express an independent voluntary decision and rejected it.

The application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of the respondent's employees.

The union filed acceptable membership evidence for over 70 percent of the employees in the unit at the time of the application, exceeding the 55 percent required for automatic certification.

The respondent employer requested that the Board exercise its discretion to order a representation vote due to a planned build-up of the workforce from 70 to 156 employees.

The Board applied its established build-up principles, noting that even at the halfway point of the projected build-up, the union would likely maintain support of approximately 65 percent of the employees.

Consequently, the Board declined to order a representation vote and granted outright certification to the applicant.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 27 sought to intervene in the proceedings, arguing it had a long-standing bargaining relationship with the respondent and could offer insight into the respondent's construction activities.

The Board denied standing, finding that Local 27 was a stranger to the provincial agreement being grieved and had no legal right to participate.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to grant standing, noting that doing so based on the precedential value of the decision would needlessly complicate proceedings.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's Brown's Line location.

The respondent argued that the appropriate unit should include employees at both its Brown's Line and Queensway locations in Metropolitan Toronto.

Applying the Usarco criteria, the Board found a strong community of interest between the employees at the two locations due to integrated operations and regular employee movement.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit encompassed all employees in Metropolitan Toronto.

As the union's membership evidence related to fewer than 45 per cent of the employees in this broader unit, the application was dismissed.

The complainant filed a complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act alleging that the respondent trade union violated sections 68, 69, and 70 regarding his employment at a uranium mine.

The Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing pursuant to section 71(1) of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

Relying on the precedent in Pronto Uranium Mines Ltd., the Board determined that the mining and concentrating of uranium ore falls within federal jurisdiction, and therefore the provincial Board lacked jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

The union applied for certification.

The employer argued that membership evidence collected by an employee, Mr. Pyle, should be discounted because he threatened other employees with job loss if they did not sign union cards.

The Board found that Mr. Pyle did make such threats.

As a result, the Board declined to give full weight to the membership evidence and ordered a representation vote to ascertain the true wishes of the employees.

One Board member dissented, arguing that employers should not be permitted to participate in certification hearings regarding membership evidence.

The applicant, an employee, applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The applicant submitted a document containing signatures of employees who wished to decertify the union.

The document was a photocopy of individual sheets that had been pasted together, with the originals allegedly sent to the union's head office.

The union did not present evidence to contradict this claim.

The Board accepted the document as evidence of the employees' wishes, finding that the signatures collected by the applicant were obtained voluntarily.

The Board ordered a representation vote to determine if the employees wished to continue being represented by the union.

One Board member dissented, arguing that the petition should have been rejected due to its form and the circumstances of its circulation.

The applicant trade union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that three printing companies should be treated as a single employer.

The original company, Hunter Printing, experienced financial difficulties and eventually ceased operations, laying off its employees.

The owner subsequently commenced operations through two new corporate entities, utilizing the same equipment and performing similar work.

The Board found that the companies carried on associated or related businesses under common control and direction.

The Board exercised its discretion to make a single employer declaration, ensuring the union's bargaining rights continued with respect to the new entities, despite there currently being no employees in the bargaining unit.

The complainant, a teacher, filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation alleging violations of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing, finding that it lacked jurisdiction because section 2(f) of the Labour Relations Act explicitly excludes teachers, whose employment relations are governed by the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act.

During a hearing for a construction industry grievance referred under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, a dispute arose regarding the scope of a summons to witness issued at the applicant's request.

The applicant sought the production of documents relating to job sites not mentioned in the grievance and for periods extending beyond the grievance date.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that the summons must be restricted to documents relating only to the two job sites specifically named in the grievance, and limited the relevant timeframe to the period between March 19, 1984, and the first day of the hearing.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether collective bargaining relationships existed between six Atikokan employers and Local 75, and whether an April 22, 1983 collective agreement was binding on them.

The Board found that Local 75 held bargaining rights for all employers except The Little Falls Dining Room (for which the union withdrew its claim).

However, the Board concluded that the April 1983 agreement was only binding on the three employers who actually executed it (John The Sportsman Restaurant, Rockton Hotel, and Atikokan Hotel), and not on the Valenca Restaurant or the Steep Rock Inn, as they had not signed it and were not bound by the actions of the informal employers' association.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification to replace the incumbent union.

The timeliness of the application depended on whether the Inflation Restraint Act had extended the previous collective agreement or whether a subsequent document signed by the employer and incumbent union constituted a new collective agreement.

The Board found that the subsequent document was a separate collective agreement that expired on December 31, 1983, making the application timely.

The Board also declined to order a new representation vote despite the passage of time, directing that the ballots from the pre-hearing vote be counted.

The complainants, employees of The T. Eaton Company Limited, alleged that the respondent union violated the Labour Relations Act by failing to hold a ratification vote before accepting a collective agreement.

The union, facing a prolonged strike and the potential loss of bargaining rights, had its International President ratify the agreement after conducting a back-to-work vote among striking employees only.

The Board found that the union did not act in bad faith or violate its duty of fair representation, as it was not legally obligated to hold a ratification vote and acted to protect its bargaining rights.

The complaints were dismissed.

The complainant union alleged that the grievor was discharged from her employment as a waitress at a Swiss Chalet restaurant because of her support for the union, contrary to section 66 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer contended that the grievor was a probationary employee who was discharged for complaining about cleaning duties and interfering with other employees' work.

The Board found that the employer's evidence regarding the reasons for discharge was contradictory and lacked credibility.

Applying the reverse onus under section 89(5) of the Act, the Board concluded that the employer failed to prove that the discharge was not tainted by anti-union animus.

The Board ordered the grievor reinstated with compensation.

The Board was asked to determine whether the construction of the Baker Centre, a non-profit combined nursing home, retirement home, and day-care facility, fell within the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector or the residential sector of the construction industry.

After hearing extensive evidence on industry practice and the nature of the facility, the Board concluded that the project fell within the ICI sector.

The Board reasoned that the facility is an institution providing a socially beneficial service, with residents conducting daily activities in shared areas under the direction of a management firm, distinguishing it from typical residential construction.

The complainant union filed complaints under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding work assignments by the respondent employers to another union.

The complainant sought directions binding on other jobs and against respondents other than the specific employers complained about.

The Board held that the appropriateness of a direction binding on other jobs under section 91(2) is a matter for the merits hearing.

The Board also ruled that it has jurisdiction under section 91(1) to make directions against persons other than the party being complained about, leaving the application of this jurisdiction to the merits hearing.

The complainant trade union alleged that the respondent employer violated the statutory freeze period under section 79(2) and the prohibition against union interference under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by laying off several employees shortly after an application for certification was filed.

The Board found that the layoffs of sales staff and receiving employees were part of a pre-existing program or a continuation of business as usual, and thus did not violate the freeze.

However, the layoffs of cleaning and alterations staff, which resulted from contracting out and centralization decisions made after the freeze began, constituted an unlawful alteration of employee privileges.

The section 64 complaint was dismissed as the layoffs were motivated by bona fide business reasons.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer engaged in surface bargaining during negotiations for first collective agreements at six retail stores.

The union argued that the employer's insistence on separate bargaining sessions, its refusal to offer unionized employees better terms than non-unionized employees, and its proposed blanket no-solicitation rule violated the duty to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the employer's bargaining structure and wage proposals constituted hard bargaining rather than surface bargaining.

However, the Board held that the employer's insistence on a blanket no-solicitation rule that prohibited union activity on company premises during non-working hours violated section 15, and directed the employer to amend its proposal.