Ian Springate

The respondents in several human rights complaints regarding 'adults only' condominium policies brought preliminary motions challenging the Board of Inquiry's jurisdiction and the naming of individual directors as parties.

The Board held that it has jurisdiction under section 52(1) of the Charter to determine whether the Code's definition of age violates equality rights.

The Board also declined to remove the individual directors as respondents, noting they could be found personally liable for causing the corporations to discriminate, but removed the 'Board of Directors' as it is not a legal entity.

The complainant, a truck driver, alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by negotiating and implementing a pension plan despite the opposition of a majority of the covered employees.

The Board found that the union was not required to act merely as an agent for the majority's immediate wishes.

Because the union considered the employees' views but reasonably concluded that a pension plan was in the long-term best interests of the bargaining unit as a whole, its actions were not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The complaint was dismissed.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his authority to appoint a single arbitrator under section 45 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer objected to the appointment, arguing that the grievance concerning a safety and attendance bonus arose after the expiry of both the collective agreement and the statutory freeze period.

The trade union contended that the right to the bonus accrued during the agreement and freeze period.

The Board advised the Minister that he has the authority to appoint an arbitrator, as the arbitrator has the jurisdiction to interpret the collective agreement and determine whether the grievance is arbitrable and valid.

The applicant union brought applications under sections 1(4) and 63 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that a newly formed construction company, Chartex, was either a successor to or under common control with Metro Century and Leaseholds.

Metro Century had ceased active operations due to financial difficulties, and a former employee incorporated Chartex.

The Board found that Chartex only acquired minor assets from Metro Century and was a new, independent business rather than a continuation of the predecessor's business.

The Board also concluded that Chartex was not sufficiently functionally integrated with Leaseholds to justify a related employer declaration.

Both applications were dismissed.

The respondent requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision declaring M.J. Guthrie Construction Limited and Rosedale Construction to be a single employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent argued there was insufficient evidence that the applicant council had acquired the jurisdiction of the predecessor council, and that the Board lacked jurisdiction to make such a finding.

The Board found there was sufficient evidence of the transfer of jurisdiction via a charter from the AFL-CIO, and that the common law rules regarding the merger of voluntary associations did not apply to subordinate chartered councils.

The application for reconsideration was denied.

The complainant, a sighted employee, was awarded a lead hand position over a more senior, registered blind employee.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the blind employee, relying on a collective agreement provision granting preference to registered blind personnel.

The complainant alleged the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by favouring the blind employee's interests and discriminating against him because he is sighted.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding the union acted in good faith based on a reasonable interpretation of the collective agreement.

The Board further held that enforcing a contractual preference for blind persons is akin to a special program under the Human Rights Code and does not constitute prohibited discrimination under the Act.

The applicant hospital applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether 26 'unit supervisors' exercised managerial functions under section 1(3)(b) and were therefore not 'employees'.

The hospital had reorganized its nursing department, replacing 'head nurses' with 'unit supervisors'.

The Board examined the actual duties performed by a representative unit supervisor, noting that while the job description suggested extensive managerial authority, the actual practice involved clearing decisions with an associate director.

The Board concluded that the unit supervisors did not exercise the type of real decision-making authority that would make them managerial, and held that they are employees for the purposes of the Act.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging the respondent employer failed to pay travel allowances to carpenters from Essex County working on a project in Chatham, contrary to the provincial agreement.

The employer argued it was not required to pay the allowances because a union official had previously assured the employer that local Chatham carpenters would be referred to the project, leading the employer to omit travel allowances from its project costing.

The Board found that the doctrine of estoppel applied, as the employer had reasonably relied on the union official's assurance to its detriment.

The grievance was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The Board previously found that the union lacked majority support without a disputed membership card and considered ordering a representation vote.

The union requested certification under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act, arguing that the employer's unlawful discharge of a union supporter and involvement in employee statements of desire made a free representation vote unlikely.

The Board found that the employer's unlawful discharge of an employee for union activity would prevent the true wishes of employees from being freely ascertained in a vote.

The Board granted certification under section 8.

The union referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the employer violated the provincial agreement.

The parties agreed to first determine whether the employer was actually bound by the agreement.

The Board found that although the employer had signed various documents, including a 'letter of assent' and a 'signing page', these were signed on the understanding they would not be enforced and did not constitute formal voluntary recognition.

The Board concluded the employer was not legally bound by the provincial agreement and terminated the proceedings.

The complainant Paperworkers' Union filed a complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the assignment of work involving the operation of motorized equipment not requiring an operating engineers ticket at the respondent employer's mill.

The employer had assigned the work to the Operating Engineers' Union.

The Board considered the historical context, technological changes, area practice, and previous Board jurisprudence.

The Board directed that the work be assigned to the Paperworkers' Union, conditional on an undertaking that existing employees belonging to the Operating Engineers' Union be permitted to work within the Paperworkers' Union's jurisdiction while continuing to pay dues to their current union.

The applicant union sought certification for full-time and part-time employees of the respondent hotel.

The employer challenged the union's membership evidence based on irregularities in the collection process, but the Board found the evidence reliable as the union had properly disclosed and corrected the issues.

The employer conceded to committing unfair labour practices, including discharging key union supporters.

The Board concluded that the employer's actions destroyed the free selection process, making it unlikely that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained in a representation vote.

Consequently, the Board certified the union under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act and ordered extensive remedial measures, including reinstatement, compensation, and union access to the workplace.

The applicant union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant submitted membership evidence but failed to file a proper Form 80 declaration, instead submitting a custom document that omitted the required assurances regarding the authenticity of the membership documents.

Because the Board relies on documentary membership evidence without cross-examination, it requires these assurances.

Lacking a proper Form 80, the Board refused to give weight to the membership evidence and dismissed the application.

The complainant union brought section 89 complaints alleging two employees were unlawfully discharged.

The respondent employer acknowledged the unlawful terminations but disputed whether the employees adequately mitigated their losses.

The Board found that one employee reasonably mitigated her losses by seeking full-time employment to replace her part-time jobs.

For the second employee, the Board found he acted reasonably in turning down a job offer in another city due to financial constraints, but failed to mitigate his losses when he subsequently quit a part-time job before securing alternate full-time employment.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The union filed membership evidence for more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the bargaining unit.

However, statements of desire opposing the certification were also filed, signed by employees who had previously signed union cards.

The Board held a hearing to determine whether the statements of desire were voluntary.

The majority of the Board concluded that the statements were signed voluntarily, as management was not involved in their origination or circulation, and the employees did not sign out of fear of employer reprisals.

A dissenting Board member found that management had created a climate that thwarted voluntary expression.

The matter was directed to continue for hearing in conjunction with a related unfair labour practice complaint.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The union submitted membership evidence for three of five employees.

One employee signed a membership card after a union representative mistakenly told him he was working for a unionized firm and was required to join.

The employee later signed a resignation and a statement of desire opposing the union, with significant involvement from the employer's president.

The Board found the resignation and statement of desire were not voluntary due to management involvement.

However, because the employee signed the membership card under a misapprehension about his employer's union status, the Board doubted the reliability of the membership evidence and indicated a representation vote would normally be ordered.

The union requested certification under section 8, so the matter was relisted for hearing.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of construction employees.

The union requested a unit encompassing all trades in the respondent's employ, including those outside its designated employee bargaining agency.

The Board found such a unit inappropriate as it would disrupt the provincial bargaining scheme, restricting the unit to construction labourers.

The Board also declined to expressly include specific classifications like cement finishers in the unit description, though it added a clarity note confirming their inclusion.

Certificates were issued for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector and for all other sectors in the relevant geographic area.

The union and the company both referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union alleged that the company violated a letter of intent incorporated into the collective agreement by subcontracting the fabrication of vessels to a non-union shop without prior consultation or justification.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that while the company ignored the spirit of the letter of intent, the letter only suggested, rather than mandated, that fabrication work be placed in union shops or discussed with the union if placed elsewhere.

The complainants alleged that the respondent terminated Margaret O'Connor's employment because she testified at an arbitration hearing, contrary to section 80 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent argued that an arbitration hearing is not a 'proceeding under this Act' and therefore section 80 did not apply.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that a board of arbitration or sole arbitrator is a statutory tribunal constituted under the Act, and thus a hearing before such a tribunal is a 'proceeding under this Act'.

Consequently, witnesses at arbitration hearings are protected against reprisals.

The complaint was adjourned sine die at the request of the parties.

The applicant union council sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act against M. J. Guthrie Construction Limited and Rosedale Construction, and referred a grievance under section 124.

The Board found that the two companies were under common control and direction.

Although they had operated side-by-side for over twenty years, the recent phasing out of the unionized company and the performance of its work by the non-unionized company threatened to erode existing bargaining rights.

The Board granted the section 1(4) declaration to protect these rights.

However, the Board dismissed the section 124 grievance, finding that the historical working agreement relied upon was null and void in the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector due to the provincial bargaining requirements of section 146 of the Act.