James A. Ronson

The applicant union applied for certification of a new bargaining unit of continuing education instructors and sought to combine it with an existing unit that had not yet reached a first collective agreement.

The employer opposed the combination, arguing it would cause serious labour relations problems and instability.

The Board granted the combination, finding that the alternative of two small, fragmented units would be more problematic than integrating the new group into the ongoing first contract arbitration.

A dissenting board member would have refused the combination.

The applicant union sought interim relief to reinstate an employee acting as an in-house organizer who was terminated during an organizing campaign.

The employer alleged the employee was terminated for providing a false alibi for a thief.

The Board granted the interim relief, ordering the organizer returned to work without compensation pending an expedited hearing on the merits.

In this concurring decision, Board Member Ronson agreed with the reinstatement, noting the minimal risk of the organizer becoming involved in theft during the short period before the hearing, while acknowledging the employer's zero-tolerance policy for theft.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer terminated five night crew employees due to their involvement in an organizing campaign.

The employer claimed the terminations were part of a chain-wide cost-reduction strategy.

The Board found the employer's actions inconsistent with its prior policies and concluded the terminations were tainted by anti-union animus, violating the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the employees reinstated with compensation.

Furthermore, finding that the employer's substantial misconduct would prevent the ascertainment of employees' true wishes in a representation vote, the Board granted certification pursuant to section 8 of the Act.

The complainant trade union alleged that the respondent employer violated the statutory freeze provisions of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act and the Labour Relations Act by failing to pay an annual wage increase and a week-end premium, and that this conduct was improperly motivated.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer breached the freeze provisions by failing to pay the annual wage increase, as there was an established pattern of maintaining wages at a specific rate relative to the central collective agreement.

The Board dismissed the complaints regarding the week-end premium and improper motivation, finding no established pattern for the premium and no evidence of anti-union animus.

The employer was ordered to pay the wage increase retroactively with interest.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated the statutory freeze provisions of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to pay maturity and promotional salary increases after the expiry of the collective agreement.

The employer argued that its historical practice during freeze periods was not to pay such increases, establishing a privilege or 'business as usual'.

The majority of the Board upheld the complaint, finding that the clear language of the expired collective agreement governed the freeze period, and the employer's past practice during previous freezes did not override the terms of the agreement.

The employer was ordered to pay the increases.

The applicant, Local 594, sought a declaration under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent, Local 586, had not acquired its bargaining rights following a merger ordered by the International President of the IBEW.

Local 594 argued that a merger could not be effected without a vote of its members.

The majority of the Board dismissed the application, finding that the merger was carried out in accordance with the union's constitution and that the Board's role under section 62 is to ensure constitutional provisions were followed, not to require a membership vote.

A dissenting member would have required a representation vote for non-ICI sector bargaining rights.

Sixteen employees filed an unfair labour practice complaint against their employer, Dufferin Aggregates, alleging that the employer was attempting to destroy the union by assigning work to another company.

The union declined to join the complaint.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the employees lacked status to bring the complaint without the union's support and that the Board should defer to arbitration.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that individual employees have status to bring a complaint under section 66(a) of the Labour Relations Act to protect their individual rights, even without union support.

The Board also declined to defer to arbitration, as the complaint alleged a breach of the Act rather than merely a violation of the collective agreement.

The respondent employer sought reconsideration of a previous Board decision ordering it to compensate three employees for unlawful discharge.

The employer argued it was prejudiced because a former articling student of the Board subsequently represented the union at the compensation hearing.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no evidence of prejudice, noting the employer failed to raise the issue at the hearing, and observing that the employer was attempting to delay its legal obligations.

The Board directed that its compensation order be filed in the Supreme Court for enforcement.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of carpenters employed by the respondent in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector province-wide, and in all other sectors in Grey County.

On the application date, the respondent had no employees working in the ICI sector, but had carpenters working in residential construction in Grey County.

The Board held that under section 131a(1) of the Labour Relations Act, an application can relate to the ICI sector even if no employees are working in that sector on the application date, provided the proposed bargaining unit encompasses it.

Finding that the union had the requisite membership support among the employees in the bargaining unit, the Board issued two certificates: one for the ICI sector province-wide, and one for all other sectors in Grey County.

A dissenting board member argued that the desires of carpenters working outside Grey County should have been considered before issuing a province-wide ICI certificate.