I. M. Stamp

The applicant union sought relief under section 63 and subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that a masonry subcontractor sold its business to a related real estate development company or that the two entities constituted a single employer.

The Board dismissed the applications, finding no sale of a business as there was no continuation of the predecessor's business, and finding that the entities were not under common control or direction despite a familial relationship between their principals.

The Board also dismissed a motion to find the principal of the predecessor company in contempt, as he had purged his initial contempt by subsequently answering all relevant questions.

The complainant union alleged that the employer committed an unfair labour practice by issuing written communications to employees during collective bargaining.

The union argued that the employer was attempting to bargain directly with employees and undermine the union's exclusive bargaining rights.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer's communications were accurate, did not disparage the union, and were permissible exercises of the employer's freedom of expression under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board concluded that the employer was merely explaining its bargaining position and not attempting to negotiate directly with the employees.

The union requested that the Board reconsider its previous decision which declared a collective agreement null and void.

The union argued the Board intended to declare the agreement null and void only insofar as it applied to the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector of the construction industry.

The Board granted the request and varied its decision to clarify that the collective agreement is unlawful and null and void only in the ICI sector.

The applicant union sought certification for various groups of employees of the respondent construction contractor.

The Board resolved challenges to the bargaining unit descriptions and employee lists.

The Board found that the Asphalt Plant Foreman did not exercise managerial functions and was an employee within the bargaining unit.

The Board also determined that three challenged drivers belonged to a different bargaining unit based on where they reported to work.

The Board concluded that more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant.

The union applied for certification to represent taxicab drivers and owner-operators working under the Hamilton Yellow Cab banner.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the single car/plate owner-operators were dependent contractors, not independent contractors, due to their economic dependence on and control by Yellow Cab.

The Board ordered two separate bargaining units: one for dependent contractors and one for drivers.

Additionally, the Board declared Yellow Cab and Transportation Unlimited to be a single employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, but dismissed the related employer application regarding the other named respondents.

The applicant trade union applied under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

The Board found that the employer had engaged in unfair labour practices during the organizing campaign, which chilled employee support.

During bargaining, the employer refused to provide the union with the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and wage rates of bargaining unit employees, and maintained uncompromising positions without reasonable justification.

The Board concluded that the collective bargaining process had been unsuccessful due to the employer's refusal to recognize the union's bargaining authority and its failure to make reasonable efforts to conclude an agreement.

The Board directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of the respondent's employees.

The Board reconsidered and varied a portion of its previous decision regarding the intervener's bargaining rights.

On the merits of the certification, the Board refused to allow the respondent to add an employee to the list after multiple previous amendments, noting the information was always in the respondent's control.

The Board also found the applicant's documentary evidence of membership to be unambiguous and reliable.

As the applicant demonstrated membership support of over fifty-five percent, the Board issued certificates to the applicant without a representation vote.

The Board issued a decision quantifying damages and providing guidance on compensation following a finding that the employer committed unfair labour practices, including an unlawful lock-out and failure to bargain in good faith.

The Board awarded damages for the loss of opportunity to negotiate a collective agreement, determined that locked-out employees have a duty to mitigate their losses after an initial period, and ruled that lock-out pay received from the international union is a collateral benefit that is not deductible from the employer's compensation liability.

The Board declined to award legal costs or compensation for union officials' time spent at hearings, but allowed recovery for reasonable negotiating expenses and costs of the union's boycott campaign.

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

The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the grievance pertained to non-construction maintenance work, whereas section 124 applies only to the construction industry.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that because the applicant is a council of trade unions and the respondent operates a business in the construction industry, the Board has jurisdiction to hear the referral.

Whether the specific work falls under the collective agreement is a matter for the merits.

The union grieved the employer's refusal to rehire a fully qualified tradesman who had been properly referred through the union hiring hall.

The employer refused to rehire the grievor solely because he had failed to reimburse the employer $46.00 for a lost welding jacket from a previous period of employment.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the collective agreement did not give the employer an unfettered right to reject rehires, but only a right to reject based on competency or qualifications.

Even if an implied residual discretion existed, the employer acted unreasonably by using the hiring hall referral mechanism to unilaterally enforce a debt collection, contrary to the policy against unilateral wage deductions reflected in the Employment Standards Act.

The grievance was allowed and compensation ordered.

In an application for decertification, a representation vote was held resulting in a tie, with five segregated ballots.

The Board convened a hearing to determine the eligibility of the five individuals who cast the segregated ballots.

The parties agreed one ballot should be destroyed.

The Board held that the employer could not resile from its prior representation that two employees were outside the bargaining unit, and their ballots were destroyed.

The Board found the remaining two employees were eligible to vote and directed their ballots be counted, rejecting the union's argument that the employer was estopped by its conduct outside the Board proceedings.

The applicant applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

A representation vote was held where the applicant was the sole voter and voted against the union.

The union challenged the vote, arguing the applicant was not eligible to vote as he had not worked in the ICI sector prior to the vote, and that a single employee was not representative of the workforce.

The Board dismissed the union's objections, finding no evidence to doubt the applicant's eligibility and confirming that a single employee can constitute a bargaining unit for the purpose of terminating bargaining rights.

The Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees.

The applicant union sought a determination under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act that two individuals performing pole line construction for the respondent were dependent contractors and thus employees.

The Board applied the 11-factor test from Algonquin Tavern to assess the relationship.

The Board found that the individuals operated a specialized, independent business, supplied their own equipment, set their own unit prices, and retained control over their work methods.

Consequently, the Board concluded they were independent contractors, not dependent contractors, and dismissed the application.

The applicant union sought certification for construction labourers employed by the respondent.

The respondent and intervener requested an adjournment, arguing the Board needed to interpret an existing collective agreement and address a related employer issue.

The Board denied the adjournment, finding it unnecessary to interpret the existing agreement to determine the appropriate bargaining unit, and noting the related employer issue was not properly before it.

The Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and scheduled further hearings to resolve disputes over the list of employees.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent occasional teachers employed by the respondent school board and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The Board directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be taken, as it appeared that not less than thirty-five percent of the employees in the voting constituency were members of the applicant.

The Board also addressed the test for determining voter eligibility for occasional teachers and deferred the issue of whether this application was a subsequent application under subsection 103(3) of the Labour Relations Act to the panel dealing with an earlier application.

The union applied for certification and won a pre-hearing representation vote by a margin of one ballot.

The employer filed an untimely objection, arguing the vote should be set aside because a union supporter incorrectly told an eligible employee he could not vote, and that employee did not vote.

The Board dismissed the objection, finding the employer failed to meet the reasonable diligence test for extending the time limit.

The Board further noted that even if timely, the objection would fail because the employee had adequate official notice of his right to vote and the means to clarify his eligibility.

A certificate was issued to the union.

The applicant union applied under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

The respondent employer's president had repeatedly stated he would not work with a union, refused to negotiate until a representation vote was held (despite the union already being certified), and threatened to close the business.

The Board found that the process of collective bargaining had been unsuccessful because of the employer's refusal to recognize the bargaining authority of the trade union.

The Board directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The applicant union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a request for reconsideration of a Board decision that had issued two certificates to the union.

The union argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction to reconsider its decision or, alternatively, should exercise its discretion to refuse the request.

The Board dismissed the preliminary motion, finding that section 106(1) of the Labour Relations Act grants it broad jurisdiction to reconsider any decision.

The Board held that the union's arguments regarding reliance and finality went to the exercise of the Board's discretion, which should only be determined after a full hearing on the merits of the reconsideration request.

The applicant employee applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The applicant submitted a petition signed by a sufficient number of employees.

The Board inquired into the voluntariness of the petition.

The applicant, a former supervisor who retained a close relationship with management, circulated the petition.

The Board found that employees would reasonably perceive the applicant as closely associated with management and might fear that management would learn whether they signed.

Given this perception, the unusual lack of discussion before signing, and the applicant's unreliable testimony, the Board concluded the applicant failed to prove the petition represented the voluntary wishes of the employees.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant Carpenters union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding house framing work assigned to a subcontractor.

The respondent Labourers union and the intervener argued the Board should refuse to entertain the complaint, asserting it was an abuse of process and essentially a representational dispute over bargaining rights rather than a true work assignment dispute.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to refuse the complaint, finding that the representational aspects of the dispute and the abuse of process allegations were matters better addressed when hearing the merits of the complaint.