I. M. Stamp

The complainant trade union alleged that the respondent employer violated the statutory freeze provisions of the Labour Relations Act by terminating four employees without following the progressive discipline procedures set out in the employer's Policy Manual.

The Board found that the Policy Manual established the pre-freeze terms and conditions of employment, which the employer was obligated to maintain.

Because the employer failed to follow its own discipline policy, the terminations violated the Act.

The Board ordered the employees reinstated with compensation and directed the employer to post a notice of its violation.

In an application for certification in the construction industry, the union challenged the inclusion of Mike Massi on the list of bargaining unit employees.

The Board found that although he sometimes worked as a labourer, he was a one-third shareholder, vice-president, received a salary and dividends, and was involved in decisions relating to the company's overall operations and labour costs.

The Board concluded that his inclusion would create a conflict of interest and excluded him from the bargaining unit pursuant to section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employers violated the collective agreement.

Prior to the hearing, counsel for the parties negotiated a settlement.

The respondent later argued its counsel lacked the authority to bind Min-A-Mart Ltd. The Board found that the respondent's counsel had ostensible authority to settle the matter on behalf of both employers and that the applicant reasonably relied on this representation.

The Board enforced the settlement and declared Min-A-Mart Ltd. bound by the provincial collective agreement.

The complainant, a union health and safety representative, alleged that the respondent, a Ministry of Labour manager, violated sections 70 and 3 of the Labour Relations Act by threatening to dissolve the joint health and safety committee and threatening the complainant with 'big trouble' if he shared committee information with the NDP.

The Board found that the respondent's statements, while perhaps ill-advised, were motivated by a genuine desire to improve the dysfunctional 'internal responsibility system' at the workplace and to further the objectives of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, rather than to intimidate the complainant or cover up employer violations.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of attendants employed by Nucleus Housing Inc., a non-profit corporation providing personal attendant care to quadriplegic tenants.

The respondent argued the attendants were domestics employed in private homes by the individual tenants, and thus excluded from the Labour Relations Act under section 2(a).

The Board found that Nucleus, not the tenants, controlled the elements characteristic of an employer-employee relationship.

The Board concluded the attendants were employees of Nucleus and granted the application for certification.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit comprised solely of the respondent's full-time dispatchers.

The respondent employer argued that dispatchers exercised managerial functions and that a dispatcher-only unit was inappropriate.

The Board found that dispatchers shared a greater community of interest with office and sales staff than with tow truck operators, and that carving out a dispatcher-only unit would lead to undue fragmentation.

The Board concluded the proposed unit was not appropriate for collective bargaining and dismissed the application.

The union requested a hearing to quantify damages from a previous grievance award and to amend the style of cause to add a related company, J.B. Carroll Electric Limited, following a section 1(4) declaration by another panel.

The Board held that amending the style of cause was unnecessary because the section 1(4) declaration already made the two companies one employer for the purposes of the Act, meaning the assets of both were susceptible to legal process.

The Board also determined the appropriate interest rate on the agreed-upon compensation of $42,149.25, rejecting the employer's argument for a fluctuating rate and fixing it at 11% from March 11, 1983.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer violated the Labour Relations Act by refusing to provide the salaries paid to each named individual in the bargaining unit prior to collective bargaining.

The employer argued that individual employees might not want their salaries disclosed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the employer's refusal constituted a breach of the duty to make every reasonable effort to conclude a collective agreement under section 15 of the Act, as the union required the information to formulate proposals and administer the collective agreement.

The Board directed the employer to provide the requested salary information.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether the newly created Production Control Co-ordinator position, held by Margaret Campbell, was an 'employee' for the purposes of the Act.

The respondent company argued the position was managerial and confidential.

The Board applied the 'effective recommendation' test and found that Ms. Campbell exercised independent judgment that consistently triggered immediate management responses, including discipline and staff cutbacks.

Consequently, the Board concluded she exercised managerial functions and was not an 'employee' under the Act.

The applicant union applied for certification of a tag-end bargaining unit of quality control technicians at the respondent's plant.

The respondent requested a deferral of the application based on a projected build-up of the workforce, and sought to exclude seasonal employees from the unit.

The Board declined to defer the application, finding that the projected build-up was dependent on uncertain sales projections and lacked the requisite degree of certainty.

The Board also refused to exclude seasonal employees, concluding that the quality control technicians did not share the distinct community of interest of seasonal production employees.

Finding that more than 55% of the employees in the unit were members of the applicant, the Board certified the union.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent the respondent's employees.

Interveners alleged that the membership evidence was obtained by intimidation, coercion, fraud, and misrepresentation.

The Board found that a business representative of the applicant threatened employees with loss of employment if they did not join the union.

As a result, the Board gave no weight to the membership evidence and dismissed the application.

The applicant union sought certification for a production unit, arguing that engineering department employees lacked a community of interest and should be excluded.

The respondent employer sought to include them, citing future plans for engineering personnel to perform substantial work on the shop floor.

The Board initially ruled that evidence of community of interest must be confined to circumstances existing on the application date.

Upon the employer's request for reconsideration, the Board revoked its ruling, holding that in the unique circumstances of the case, the employer could adduce evidence of future shop work, with its relevance and weight to be determined later.

The applicant union alleged that James River-Marathon Ltd. (JRM) was a successor employer to American Can Canada Inc. regarding its woodlands operations under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

JRM had purchased a paper mill and timber limits from American Can, but simultaneously transferred the woodlands equipment and exclusive cutting rights to Pic River Forest Products Inc., a subsidiary of Buchanan Forest Products Limited.

The Board found that while JRM initially acquired the woodlands business, it immediately transferred it to Pic River in a transaction resembling a sale of a business rather than a mere subcontract.

Since JRM did not retain or operate the woodlands business itself, the application for a successor employer declaration against JRM was dismissed.

Following a finding that the respondent union violated section 69 of the Labour Relations Act regarding hiring hall referrals, the Board convened a hearing to determine compensation.

The Board rejected the calculation methods proposed by both the complainant and the union, finding them speculative.

Instead, the Board calculated compensation by comparing the complainant's actual earnings to the estimated average earnings of the active membership of the local union for the relevant year.

After deducting amounts for the complainant's failure to mitigate by voluntarily quitting a job and for a period of medical disability, the Board ordered the union to pay $4,341.86 plus interest and corresponding benefit contributions.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent prime contractor engaged in an unlawful lock-out by reducing the electricians' work week from 36 to 32 hours after they refused to agree to a modified four-day work week at straight time.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the respondent's actions constituted an unlawful lock-out under section 72(1) of the Labour Relations Act, as the reduction in hours was intended to compel the employees to modify their provincial agreement.

The Board also found that the respondent violated section 146(2) by attempting to negotiate an arrangement other than a provincial agreement, and ordered the respondent to cease and desist and pay damages.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer was bound by a provincial collective agreement.

The union argued that the employer's execution of a National Minimum Standard Agreement for a Commercial Pipe Fabrication Shop and a Union Label Agreement with the international union constituted a collective agreement that bound the employer to the provincial agreement.

The Board found that the fabrication shop agreement was not a collective agreement within the meaning of section 1(1)(e) of the Act, as it appeared to be a 'pick-up' agreement or conditional agreement rather than a standalone collective agreement.

Furthermore, the agreement did not cover employees engaged in on-site construction installation.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to process the grievance and dismissed the application.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees at a newly opened nursing home in Etobicoke.

The intervener union claimed it already represented the employees based on a voluntary recognition agreement with the employer.

The Board held that under section 60(1) of the Labour Relations Act, a voluntary recognition agreement that expands an existing bargaining unit to include new employees is subject to challenge if entered into before the employees are hired or aware of the union representation.

Since the intervener did not demonstrate majority support among the new employees at the time they were hired, the Board declared the intervener was not entitled to represent them, and the applicant's certification application was timely.

The applicant union referred grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent successor employer breached the collective agreement by failing to pay union wages and benefits after a sale of business.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction over non-construction work and that the grievors failed to mitigate their damages by refusing to work for the new non-union company.

The Board held it had jurisdiction under sections 124 and 89 to hear all aspects of the grievances.

The Board further held that the grievors were not required to mitigate their losses by accepting employment on substantially poorer terms, and that the respondent's liability commenced on the date of the sale, not the date of the Board's prior successor rights declaration.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing the certification, which included signatures from employees who had previously signed union membership cards.

The Board found that the petition was not voluntary, as it was circulated shortly after a mandatory staff meeting where management discussed working conditions and made implicit promises, creating a reasonable perception of employer influence.

The Board disregarded the petition and granted certification based on the union's documentary evidence of membership.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights during what would normally be the open period of the collective agreement.

The respondent union argued the application was untimely because the Inflation Restraint Act, 1982 extended the collective agreement for one year, thereby postponing the open period.

The Board applied its previous reasoning in Broadway Manor, finding that the statutory extension of the agreement closed the open period for termination applications.

The Board also rejected arguments that the Inflation Restraint Act violated the freedom of association under the Charter.

The application was dismissed as untimely.