I. A. Ronson

The applicant employer applied under section 65(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to terminate the responding party union's bargaining rights.

The union brought a motion to dismiss the application for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board found that the union had not slept on its rights and was making efforts to bargain, despite unsmooth negotiations.

Applying the principle that section 65(2) is to be used as a shield and not a sword, the Board granted the motion and dismissed the employer's application.

The complainant, a prime coater operator, alleged he was suspended for exercising his right to refuse unsafe work under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The employer maintained the complainant was suspended for insubordination after refusing a direct order to clean a paint roller while the line was stopped, not for safety reasons.

The Board found the employer's witnesses more credible, concluding the complainant was ordered to do the work when the machine was down and that his refusal was not motivated by health and safety concerns.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant employee association applied for certification.

The intervener union challenged the application, alleging improprieties in the membership evidence and the Form 9 declaration, as well as employer interference.

The Board found that the Form 9 declarant did not make the necessary reasonable inquiries and that the amended Form 9 contained material misrepresentations regarding the collection of membership cards and fees.

Consequently, the Board rejected the Form 9 declarations as improper and unreliable.

Without a valid Form 9, the membership evidence was given no weight, and the application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant union filed a grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act seeking remittances from the respondent employer.

The employer argued it was not bound by the collective agreement, alleging the union representative misrepresented the terms of a voluntary recognition agreement before it was signed.

The Board found no material misrepresentation, concluding the employer simply misunderstood the scope of the agreement.

The Board declared the employer bound by the Provincial Agreement and remained seized of the quantum of damages.