Ian Springate

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent carpenters employed by the respondent.

The respondent challenged the union's membership evidence, alleging it was obtained through false statements.

The Board found the membership evidence valid, noting the employees voluntarily signed the applications and paid the required fee.

A statement of desire opposing the union was also filed, but the Board declined to give it weight, finding it was not a voluntary expression of the employee's wishes due to management influence.

The Board granted the application and issued a certificate to the applicant.

In an application for certification, the Ontario Labour Relations Board considered whether to accept membership evidence for two employees who had their one-dollar application fee paid by a co-worker.

The Board found that the employees had no intention of repaying the co-worker, meaning there was no financial sacrifice on their part, and therefore rejected their membership evidence.

However, the Board declined to reject the remaining membership evidence collected by the union representative, as he believed the loans were bona fide, and also declined to reject all evidence on the basis of insufficient inquiries by the Form 8 declarant.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices by laying off all employees and subsequently failing to recall five specific employees, including the primary union organizer, shortly after receiving notice of an application for certification.

The employer argued the lay-off was necessitated by severe financial difficulties, lack of orders, and a demand for advance payment from a supplier.

The Board found that the employer met the reverse onus under section 89(5) of the Labour Relations Act, establishing on a balance of probabilities that the lay-off and the decisions not to recall the specific employees were motivated by legitimate business considerations and employee performance, not anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed.

In two applications for union certification, the respondent employer requested that a Labour Relations Officer examine three additional employees for managerial exclusion if the union's challenge to another employee's status was successful.

The Board deferred the examination of the three additional employees until the status of the initially challenged employee was determined.

The Board also addressed the inclusion of certain employees on both the carpenters' and labourers' lists, noting that if the parties agreed an employee was re-classified between the two application dates, they could be included on both lists.

The employer referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the union engaged in an unlawful strike in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector.

The union argued that the employer was estopped from claiming damages because it had delayed filing the grievance for eight months while acquiescing to the union's conduct.

The Board found that while estoppel might not strictly apply, the employer's unreasonable delay in asserting its rights under the collective agreement warranted limiting the retroactive period for which damages could be claimed.

The Board restricted the employer's damage claim to the period subsequent to March 10, 1980, and directed that the matter be re-listed for hearing on the merits for that period.

Two trade unions applied for certification to represent carpenters and construction labourers employed by the respondent in the construction industry.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining units, including both the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector province-wide and all other sectors in the relevant geographic areas.

Because the unions challenged the accuracy of the employee lists filed by the respondent, and there was overlap between the lists of carpenters and labourers, the Board appointed a Board Officer to inquire into the composition of the bargaining units and report back before making a final determination on certification.

The applicant union brought an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act alleging a sale of a business from the predecessor employer to the respondent purchaser.

The predecessor owned two office buildings and employed cleaning staff represented by the union.

Prior to the sale, the predecessor contracted out the cleaning operations to a third party and later sold the buildings to the respondent, assigning the cleaning contract.

The Board found that a sale of a business occurred and that the union's bargaining rights continued to apply to the respondent.

However, the Board held that a prior memorandum of settlement was never ratified by the predecessor, meaning the respondent was not bound by any subsisting collective agreement.

The Board deferred determining the true employer status of the cleaning staff as the third-party contractor was not a party to the proceedings.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that three respondent companies constituted a single employer, or alternatively, that a sale of a business occurred under section 63.

The Board found no sale of business from CM to Pioneer and declined to treat them as a single employer, noting the union had historically treated CM and Subito as separate entities.

However, the Board found that Subito and Pioneer, despite operating at different times, were associated businesses under common direction and control.

The Board exercised its discretion to declare Subito and Pioneer a single employer, binding them to the provincial agreement in the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

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

A group of employees filed statements of desire in opposition to the application.

The Board found that the voluntariness of the signatures of three union members who signed the statements of desire was not proven, as the person who witnessed most signatures did not witness theirs, and there was no evidence regarding the circumstances of their signing.

Consequently, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to direct a representation vote and granted the certification.

One Board member dissented, arguing a representation vote should have been held.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer discharged three employees for union activity.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit should be restricted to the employer's non-construction winter operations.

The Board found the employer failed to prove the discharges were not tainted by anti-union animus, violating sections 64 and 66 of the Labour Relations Act.

Given the employer's violations, including threatening an employee prior to a pre-hearing vote, the Board concluded the true wishes of employees were unlikely to be ascertained.

Finding the union had adequate membership support, the Board certified the union pursuant to section 8 of the Act and ordered reinstatement with compensation for the discharged employees.

The complainant union filed a complaint regarding a work assignment dispute.

The respondent union argued the Board should defer consideration of the complaint under sections 81(13) and 81(14) of the Labour Relations Act, as the collective agreements required such disputes to be referred to the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board for the Construction Industry.

The Board agreed and postponed its inquiry to allow the matter to be referred to the mutually selected tribunal.

The complainant, a probationary teacher, filed a complaint alleging his termination violated several provisions of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act.

A previous complaint regarding the same termination had been dismissed by the Board.

The Board applied a doctrine analogous to res judicata, holding that the complainant could not relitigate the termination or raise new allegations that could have been brought in the earlier proceeding.

The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction to arbitrate alleged violations of the collective agreement under section 52(1) of the Act.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that Braneida Mechanical Service Ltd. was bound by a provincial agreement due to a sale of a business from Oliver Plumbing and Heating Limited.

Oliver had ceased operations and liquidated its assets, with Braneida purchasing a small portion of its equipment and hiring some former employees.

The Board found that Braneida was a new business rather than a continuation of Oliver, and therefore dismissed the grievance, concluding there was no sale of a business under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act.

One Board member dissented.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the respondent employer unjustly discharged a union steward.

The union argued the discharge violated the provincial agreement and section 24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, claiming the steward was fired for raising safety concerns about propane fumes.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the steward's conduct was not motivated by genuine health and safety concerns, but rather by a desire to disrupt the job site using a false safety claim.

The Board concluded the employer had just cause for the discharge.

The applicant trade union sought certification as the bargaining agent for employees at one of the respondent's four warehouses in Metropolitan Toronto.

The respondent argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should encompass employees at all four warehouses.

The Board applied the Usarco factors to assess the community of interest among the employees.

Despite some functional integration and historical transfers, the Board found that the employees at the Humberline warehouse had a distinct community of interest due to geographic separation and local administration.

The Board concluded that the single-warehouse unit was appropriate for collective bargaining and directed the matter to be re-listed.

The applicant union sought certification for a unit of millwrights employed by the respondent in Ontario.

The application was opposed on the basis that a subsisting collective agreement existed between the respondent and an intervening union (Lodge No. 126), which was headquartered in Illinois.

The applicant argued that Lodge No. 126 lacked status as a trade union in Ontario because it had no permanent presence in the province, and that its agreement could not be a valid collective agreement.

The Board held that an organization need not have a permanent presence in Ontario to be a trade union, provided it is a viable organization capable of carrying out trade union functions in the province.

The Board found Lodge No. 126 met this definition and that its agreement with the respondent was a valid collective agreement covering Ontario.

Consequently, the application for certification was dismissed as untimely.