I. Stamp

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied for certification of a part-time bargaining unit at the Toronto General Hospital.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description but disputed whether casual relief nurses should be included in the count for certification purposes.

The Hospital argued for a broader inclusion based on a recent decision involving occasional teachers, while the union argued for the Board's standard '30/30 rule'.

The Board held that the 30/30 rule should apply, as the hospital industry did not warrant a departure from this established practice.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

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

The union argued that collective bargaining was unsuccessful because the respondent employer maintained uncompromising positions without reasonable justification, specifically insisting on a three-year term and refusing to include a seniority rights or job security clause.

The Board found that the employer's refusal to grant seniority rights, especially given the history of unlawful terminations for union activity, and its insistence on a three-year term were without reasonable justification.

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

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

The respondent employer argued that several individuals, including registered nursing assistants, exercised managerial functions and should be excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board previously directed the employer to provide detailed written submissions outlining the alleged managerial duties.

The employer failed to provide sufficient evidence or concrete instances of managerial functions, instead submitting unsigned job descriptions and bald assertions.

The Board declined to inquire further into the disputed individuals' status, refused to reopen the hearing or direct a representation vote, and issued a final certificate to the union.

The union and an individual employee filed complaints alleging that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act by penalizing employees for their union organizing activities.

The employer laid off one key union organizer, reduced overtime for another, and terminated a third who had also refused to work on a machine that had previously caused him health issues.

The Board found that the employer's actions were motivated by anti-union animus and that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving otherwise.

The Board concluded that the employer contravened sections 64 and 66 of the Labour Relations Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The applicant applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The application was dismissed because a counter statement of desire reduced the number of employees supporting the termination below the required 45 percent.

The respondent requested that the Board impose a bar on further applications to terminate its bargaining rights under section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board declined to impose a bar, finding that the respondent had not actively pursued its bargaining rights and therefore the applications had not caused undue interference or disruption of bargaining.

The union applied for certification to represent part-time employees of a community college.

The college objected, arguing it was a Crown agency and therefore not subject to the Labour Relations Act.

The union argued that if the college was a Crown agency, the exclusion of part-time employees from collective bargaining legislation violated their freedom of association under the Charter.

The Board held that the college is a Crown agency due to the substantial control exercised by the Crown.

The Board further held that it lacked jurisdiction to use the Charter to read down the Interpretations Act or other external statutes to expand its own jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement by using non-union workers to install overhead doors on two projects.

The respondent argued the union's evidence was largely hearsay and inadmissible.

The Board held that under the Labour Relations Act, it has the discretion to admit and rely on hearsay evidence if it is logically probative and the opposing party has a fair opportunity to contradict it.

Relying on the uncontradicted hearsay evidence, the Board found the respondent violated the collective agreement and ordered it to pay damages for the lost man-hours.

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

The respondent, a professional engineering firm, argued it was not an employer in the construction industry as it acted merely as an agent for the owner and contracted out 98% of the work.

The Board found that the respondent directly employed two labourers, directed their work, and paid them.

Applying previous jurisprudence, the Board held that an entity need not have construction as its primary business to be an employer in the construction industry, and concluded the respondent met the statutory definition.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for four bargaining units at the respondent's retail store in Brampton.

The parties disputed the geographic scope of the units and the exclusion of personnel staff.

The Board defined the units to include all retail stores in Brampton and excluded only the existing personnel supervisor.

Objecting employees requested a representation vote, alleging intimidation and coercion by union supporters and security staff.

The Board found that the conduct of fellow employees was normal campaign byplay and that the security staff's actions did not unlawfully interfere with employee rights.

Given that over 80% of employees had signed membership cards, the Board certified the union without a vote.

The United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) applied under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration that it was the successor to the Kraus Carpet Employees Association following a merger.

The respondent employers argued the Association lacked the power to merge without unanimous member consent and that the voting procedure was flawed.

A complainant employee also alleged the merger process breached the union's duty of fair representation under section 68.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that unanimous consent was not required for a trade union to merge under the Act, and that the single vote to amend the constitution and approve the merger was sufficient.

The Board declared the UFCW the successor union and dismissed the section 68 complaint.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of plumbers and pipefitters employed by the respondent school board in the construction industry.

The respondent argued it was not an employer in the construction industry and that the work performed was maintenance, not construction.

The Board found that the respondent's program to replace obsolete radiators and thermostats constituted repair work, which falls within the definition of the construction industry under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that an employer whose principal business is not construction may still operate a business in the construction industry, and the applicant had sufficient membership support for certification.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to employ an operating engineer to operate an elevator used for lifting men and materials on a construction site.

The employer argued that the management rights clause gave it the discretion to decide whether to employ an operator.

The Board held that article 2.2 of the collective agreement required the onsite operation of the elevator to be performed by a union member whenever it was used to move men and materials.

The grievance was allowed and the employer was ordered to compensate the union for the losses flowing from the breach.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by imposing a three-day suspension on the grievor for refusing to shut down a paper machine.

The grievor claimed he lacked the training to safely perform the shutdown.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the grievor had received the necessary training and that his refusal was actually motivated by a dispute over call-in pay and meal tickets, rather than genuine safety concerns.

The Board concluded that the suspension was a valid disciplinary response to insubordination and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant, a teacher at a Jewish community school, applied for a religious exemption from paying union dues under section 47 of the Labour Relations Act.

She argued that her opposition to the union's collective bargaining activities, which had led to a work stoppage and community dissension, was based on her religious beliefs.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that while her concerns were sincere, they were not traceable to religious convictions or beliefs, as Judaism does not prohibit trade union activity and she could not identify a religious underpinning for her position.