Ian C. Springate

The applicant brought an application under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act seeking a declaration that it is under the direction and control of the Crown in Right of Ontario and that they are related employers.

The Crown challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the Labour Relations Act does not bind the Crown pursuant to section 11 of the Interpretation Act.

The Board agreed, finding that the Labour Relations Act is not binding on the Crown.

The Board concluded it had no jurisdiction to find the Crown to be a related employer or bound by a collective agreement, and terminated the proceedings.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent equipment operators employed by the respondent in the construction industry.

The union filed membership evidence for more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit.

The respondent employer requested that the Board exercise its discretion to direct a representation vote, arguing that there was an impending build-up of the workforce, that employees were not told the membership documents would be used for certification, and that the union misrepresented the effects of certification.

The Board rejected these arguments, noting its practice in the construction industry of not considering future workforce build-ups, and finding no fundamental misrepresentation or coercion by the union.

The Board declined to direct a vote and certified the union outright.

The complainant, a unionized security officer, alleged that the employer violated section 66(a) of the Labour Relations Act by denying him access to an involuntary severance plan that was available to non-unionized employees.

The complainant sought to take early retirement and receive severance payments in addition to his pension.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union had negotiated different benefits for its members, such as job security and recall rights, and had never sought to bargain for the severance plan.

The Board concluded that the employer's provision of different benefits to unrepresented employees did not constitute improper discrimination under the Act.

The applicant union filed applications under sections 1(4) and 63 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking to bind the respondent employer's new fabrication shop to an existing collective agreement.

The union argued that the employer's acquisition of a lease and equipment from a defunct company constituted a sale of a business.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the section 63 application, finding that the new operation was primarily a continuation of the employer's previous non-union shop rather than an acquisition of the defunct company's business.

However, the Board granted the section 1(4) application, declaring the various corporate entities operating the shops to be a single employer, thereby binding the new shop to the bargaining rights the union had recently acquired for the previous shop.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the respondent employer's failure to remit welfare plan contributions and union dues in a timely manner.

The Board previously directed payment of the outstanding principal amounts but reserved on the enforceability of the collective agreement's penalty provisions, which imposed percentage charges and a flat fee for late payments and arbitration.

The Board held that the provisions were enforceable as genuine pre-estimates of liquidated damages rather than unenforceable penalties, noting the difficulty of quantifying intangible damages to labour-management harmony and the union's costs of collection and arbitration.

The employer was ordered to pay the additional amounts.

The applicants applied to terminate the respondent trade union's bargaining rights under section 59 of the Labour Relations Act, arguing the business was 'dead' and they wished to sell its assets free of union connection.

The Board dismissed the application, finding section 59 inapplicable because the union had served notice to bargain and engaged in bargaining until a conciliation officer was appointed.

The Board noted that whether a sale of assets constitutes a sale of a business under section 63 must be determined after a sale occurs.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of truck drivers employed by the respondent in the construction industry.

The parties disputed the inclusion of two employees who performed both truck driving and labouring work.

The Board found that both employees were paid exclusively at the labourer's rate and were treated by the respondent as falling within a separate labourers' bargaining unit.

Consequently, the Board excluded them from the truck drivers' unit.

Having determined the final list of employees, the Board found that more than 55% of the employees in the unit were members of the applicant and ordered that a certificate issue.

The union applied for certification and requested automatic certification under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging employer interference.

The Board found that three department managers violated section 64 by directing employees during working hours to sign an anti-union petition.

However, the Board concluded that the employer's conduct was not so severe as to prevent the true wishes of the employees from being ascertained in a representation vote.

The Board ordered remedial measures, including a cease and desist order, a workplace posting, and union access to employees, and directed that a representation vote be held.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued several decisions regarding applications for certification and unfair labour practice complaints.

In the first case, the Board found that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act when three managers obtained signatures on a petition opposing the trade union.

The Board directed a representation vote and ordered remedial measures, including a posting and union access to employees.

Other decisions addressed the appropriate bargaining unit for a specialized business centre in a department store, a duty of fair representation complaint involving municipal technical employees, a sale of a business application concerning a retail food store, and the exclusion of a chemical control supervisor from a bargaining unit based on community of interest.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent five truck drivers employed by the respondent milk transport company.

The parties disputed the appropriate geographic description of the bargaining unit.

The respondent argued for the Board's standard municipality-based units, which would have fragmented the five employees into multiple units, some with only one employee.

The Board departed from its general practice, finding that the employees, though residing in different municipalities, all worked within the same general area and were part of a single integrated operation.

The Board defined the bargaining unit to encompass employees working in and out of the Regional Municipalities of York and Durham, and granted the certificate.

The applicant union requested that the Board issue arrest warrants for four individuals who failed to attend a hearing after being served with a summons to witness.

The Board found that the individuals were provided with cheques for their conduct money rather than cash.

Noting the practical difficulties associated with cashing cheques, the Board held that a witness is entitled to actual receipt of conduct money in cash prior to being required to attend.

The Board declined to issue the arrest warrants.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Although the union met the statutory requirements for automatic certification, the respondent employer requested a representation vote be delayed due to a projected build-up in its workforce.

The Board applied the criteria for projected build-ups and found that the current employees were sufficiently representative of the expected ongoing workforce, excluding temporary seasonal hires.

The Board declined to direct a representation vote and granted automatic certification.

In an application for certification in the construction industry, the union challenged the inclusion of Mike Massi on the list of bargaining unit employees.

The Board found that although he sometimes worked as a labourer, he was a one-third shareholder, vice-president, received a salary and dividends, and was involved in decisions relating to the company's overall operations and labour costs.

The Board concluded that his inclusion would create a conflict of interest and excluded him from the bargaining unit pursuant to section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent school board violated the Labour Relations Act by altering the working conditions and pay of school bus drivers during a statutory freeze period and to interfere with the union's formation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the changes were motivated by legitimate budgetary concerns following reduced provincial grants, not anti-union animus.

Furthermore, while the changes did constitute an alteration of employment conditions, the firm decision to implement them was communicated to the employees prior to the commencement of the statutory freeze period triggered by the union's second certification application.

The complaints were dismissed.

The complainants alleged that the respondent union locals violated a written settlement of an earlier unfair labour practice complaint regarding the integration of seniority lists following a hospital merger.

The settlement required the union to hold specific meetings to recommend integrated seniority before a ratification vote.

The Board found that the union executive held additional, exclusionary meetings that undermined the settlement, thereby violating section 89(7) of the Labour Relations Act.

The majority of the Board ordered that the integrated seniority lists be implemented as if the vote had succeeded, while the Vice-Chairman dissented on remedy, preferring to set aside the settlement and hear the original complaint on its merits.

The complainants filed a work assignment dispute under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent union argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the pre-conditions for a complaint were not met.

The Board found that the respondent union had filed a grievance demanding that the subcontractor assign the disputed work to its members rather than to members of another union.

Consequently, the Board ruled that the union had required an employer to assign work to its members, satisfying the pre-conditions of section 91(1), and affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The Carpenters' District Council applied to the Board under section 150 of the Labour Relations Act to determine whether two construction projects fell within the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector or the residential sector.

One project was a mixed-use building for the Hospital for Sick Children, and the other was a building on the campus of the Salvation Army Training Centre.

The Board considered local area practice and the agreement between the Metropolitan Toronto Apartment Builders Association and the Building Trades Council.

The Board concluded that both projects were predominantly residential in character and therefore fell within the residential sector, not the ICI sector.

The applicant union, Carpenters Local 1030, applied for certification to represent a unit of construction labourers employed by the respondent outside the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector.

The intervener union, Labourers Local 527, argued that the applicant was prohibited from bringing such an application under section 144(3) of the Labour Relations Act and from entering into a collective agreement under section 146(2).

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the Act does not restrict the applicant from bringing an application for non-ICI construction labourers.

Finding that both unions had filed sufficient membership evidence, the Board ordered a representation vote to determine which union would represent the employees.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent unrepresented trades employed by the respondent in Board Area #5.

The respondent requested that casual employees who regularly work outside the area be excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board declined to depart from its long-standing practice of not distinguishing between casual and regular employees in the construction industry.

Finding that more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit were members of the applicant, the Board ordered that a certificate issue.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union regarding its failure to assist her after she was terminated.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the complainant was incapable of returning to work, the complaint did not make out a prima facie case, and there was excessive delay in filing.

The Board dismissed the preliminary motion, finding that the factual disputes required a hearing and that the delay, while significant, did not cause real prejudice to the respondents.

The Board noted that any remedy could be adjusted to account for the delay.