I. M. Stamp

The employer requested reconsideration of a Board decision certifying the applicant union, arguing that some employees may not have received notice because the employer failed to post the required notices.

The Board dismissed the employer's request, finding that the employer could not raise objections on behalf of the employees and had failed to file a reply itself.

However, upon receiving a letter from an employee objecting to the certification and alleging lack of notice, the Board directed that the matter be listed for a hearing to determine whether employees were denied proper notice and what effect that should have on the certificates.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of construction labourers in the ICI sector and all other sectors, as well as carpenters and carpenters' apprentices in all other sectors.

The Board found that the applicant was not designated to represent carpenters in the ICI sector, and since the carpenters were employed in the ICI sector on the date of application, a unit of carpenters was not appropriate under either section 144(1) or 144(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board granted certification for the construction labourers in the ICI sector provincially and in all other sectors in the specified geographic area, and dismissed the application regarding carpenters.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of surveyors in the construction industry.

The respondent employer and intervener union raised preliminary motions arguing the unit was inappropriate because the applicant already held bargaining rights for other employees under the provincial agreement, and because the agreement lacked a wage schedule for surveyors outside Sarnia.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the motions, finding that the provincial agreement and ministerial designation covered surveyors, and that section 144(1) of the Labour Relations Act permits an affiliated bargaining agent to apply for certification for unrepresented employees who would be bound by the provincial agreement.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification to replace the incumbent union.

The timeliness of the application depended on whether the Inflation Restraint Act had extended the previous collective agreement or whether a subsequent document signed by the employer and incumbent union constituted a new collective agreement.

The Board found that the subsequent document was a separate collective agreement that expired on December 31, 1983, making the application timely.

The Board also declined to order a new representation vote despite the passage of time, directing that the ballots from the pre-hearing vote be counted.

The union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board concerning the interpretation of the travel allowance provision in the provincial collective agreement.

The employer argued that an employee's 'base city' for calculating travel allowance was the location where they reported for work, thereby denying travel allowance to workers dispatched from Kingston to a job site in Belleville.

The Board rejected this interpretation, finding that 'base city' refers to the employee's home base or ordinary place of residence.

The Board held that employees dispatched from Kingston to Belleville were entitled to mileage allowance calculated from their base city.

The applicant union requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision and sought disclosure of the names and addresses of employees in the voting constituency prior to a mailed ballot vote.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request but granted the disclosure request.

Relying on the York Board of Education decision, the Board found that the wide dispersion of the voting constituency made the information necessary for the applicant to adequately communicate with employees during the campaign period.

The respondent was directed to provide the names and addresses forthwith.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees applied for certification to represent employees at eight community recreation centres in the City of Toronto.

The Board had to determine whether the City of Toronto or the individual community centres were the true employer, and whether there should be one municipal-wide bargaining unit or eight separate units.

Applying the York Condominium criteria, the Board found that the boards of management had no legal status separate from the City, making the City of Toronto the employer.

Applying the Usarco tests, the Board concluded that the employees at each centre lacked a community of interest with those at other centres, and therefore eight separate bargaining units were appropriate.

One Board member dissented, arguing for a single municipal-wide unit.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer raised a non-pay allegation regarding one of the membership cards collected by an in-plant organizer.

The Board found that the one dollar payment for the card in question was a bona fide loan from the organizer to the employee, which was subsequently repaid.

Given that the organizer was inexperienced and the union official had conducted proper inquiries, the Board determined this was an isolated incident.

The Board exercised its discretion to count the remaining membership cards collected by the organizer, satisfying the requirement that more than fifty-five per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant.

A formal certificate was issued.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The intervener claimed to be the successor to the incumbent trade union and requested to be on the ballot.

The applicant disputed the successorship, alleging an invalid merger, employer support, and intimidation.

The Board held that the successorship issue must be resolved before a pre-hearing vote could be conducted.

The Board directed that the intervener's claim be treated as an application for a successor status declaration and scheduled a hearing to determine both the successorship issue and whether a pre-hearing vote should be directed in light of the applicant's allegations.

During a hearing into allegations of unlawful picketing, the complainant called an adverse party as a witness and sought to cross-examine him as of right, relying on Rule 53.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to adopt the civil rule, holding that it would instead apply the common law discretion to permit leading questions or cross-examination only if the witness demonstrates hostility or an unwillingness to answer.

The Board also ruled that section 9 of the Ontario Evidence Act does not prevent the witness's answers from being used against him in the very proceeding in which he is testifying, as the statutory protection against self-incrimination applies only to independent contemporaneous or subsequent proceedings.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent graduate and registered nurses employed by the respondent hospital on a casual basis.

The respondent objected, arguing that the applicant had previously agreed to exclude these nurses from existing full-time and part-time collective agreements and should negotiate an amendment instead.

The Board rejected the respondent's objections, noting that the union could only compel bargaining for the casual nurses by obtaining bargaining rights under the Labour Relations Act.

Finding that the applicant had the requisite membership support, the Board granted the application and issued a certificate, while noting the parties could voluntarily consolidate the bargaining units in the future.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of construction labourers.

The employer disputed the inclusion of two employees.

The Board found that one employee, who primarily operated heavy equipment, belonged in an operating engineers' unit and was excluded.

The Board found that the second employee, a foreman, did not exercise managerial functions within the meaning of section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act and was properly included in the bargaining unit.

The complainant union filed complaints under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding work assignments by the respondent employers to another union.

The complainant sought directions binding on other jobs and against respondents other than the specific employers complained about.

The Board held that the appropriateness of a direction binding on other jobs under section 91(2) is a matter for the merits hearing.

The Board also ruled that it has jurisdiction under section 91(1) to make directions against persons other than the party being complained about, leaving the application of this jurisdiction to the merits hearing.

The applicant union sought certification.

A group of employees filed a petition in opposition, which would have reduced the union's support below the 55% required for automatic certification.

The Board found that a foreman was directly involved in soliciting a signature for the petition, rendering it involuntary.

The employer and an objecting employee requested a representation vote due to the passage of time and alleged changes in the workforce.

The Board declined to order a vote, emphasizing the need for a fixed terminal date to assess membership support.

The application for certification was granted.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit consisting solely of employees at the respondent's Dupont Street location.

The respondent employer argued that the appropriate unit should encompass all office and clerical employees in Metropolitan Toronto, which would include both its Dupont and Yonge Street locations.

Applying the Usarco criteria for community of interest, the Board found significant functional coherence and interdependence between the two locations, centralized managerial authority at Yonge Street, and an ongoing computerization project that would further integrate operations and transfer work.

The Board concluded that a separate unit for the Dupont location would result in undue fragmentation and determined that the larger, municipal-wide unit was appropriate.

In an application for certification, the Board had to determine whether membership evidence was filed on or before the terminal date.

The union representative deposited the documents at the Post Office on the terminal date, but after the last dispatch time, resulting in the envelope being date-stamped for the following day.

The Board ruled that depositing the envelope with the postal clerk, who numbered it and placed it in the vault, constituted mailing by registered mail on that date.

Therefore, the evidence was filed on time.

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 argued the union's request was untimely and therefore the Minister lacked authority to appoint.

The Board held that under section 45(4), the Minister has a mandatory obligation to appoint an arbitrator upon receiving a request, and that the appointed arbitrator has exclusive jurisdiction to determine any questions regarding the timeliness of the request.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the statutory freeze period by denying work to bargaining unit employees and using managerial staff to perform their duties after an application for certification was filed.

The employer claimed a seasonal downturn in business but failed to produce documentary evidence to support this.

The Board drew an adverse inference against the employer and found a violation of the statutory freeze provisions.

The employer was ordered to compensate the affected employees for lost wages and benefits.

The complainant filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging he was discharged for union activity.

The employer argued the complaint was barred because the complainant had signed a full and final release in exchange for two weeks' pay, negotiated with the assistance of an Employment Standards Officer.

The Board found that the complainant understood he was signing a release of all claims against the employer and that the employer had not taken advantage of its superior bargaining position.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 89(4) of the Labour Relations Act to decline to hear the complaint, and dismissed it.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer engaged in surface bargaining during negotiations for first collective agreements at six retail stores.

The union argued that the employer's insistence on separate bargaining sessions, its refusal to offer unionized employees better terms than non-unionized employees, and its proposed blanket no-solicitation rule violated the duty to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the employer's bargaining structure and wage proposals constituted hard bargaining rather than surface bargaining.

However, the Board held that the employer's insistence on a blanket no-solicitation rule that prohibited union activity on company premises during non-working hours violated section 15, and directed the employer to amend its proposal.