Janice Johnston

The Board amended its previous decision dated December 8, 1999, to correct an error.

The application was withdrawn with leave of the Board, rather than adjourned sine die.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) filed a jurisdictional dispute application concerning the assignment of certain HVAC maintenance and repair work to the Operating Engineers rather than the Plumbers.

The Board evaluated the competing claims using established criteria, including employer preference, past practice, and the collective agreement.

The Board determined that the replacement of liquid heating valves requiring system shutdown should have been assigned to a composite crew of Plumbers and Operating Engineers.

The installation of an eye wash stand was declared Plumbers' work.

However, the shutdown and relocation of heating components was found to be properly assigned to the Operating Engineers.

The applicant union applied for certification of construction labourers employed by the responding party.

Following a representation vote in favour of the union, the responding party challenged the Board's constitutional jurisdiction, arguing the employees were engaged in work on a federal property (an interprovincial bridge) and thus fell under federal jurisdiction.

The Board applied the functional test for constitutional jurisdiction and determined that the responding party's primary business was construction, and its involvement with the bridge was temporary and not an integral part of the federal undertaking.

The Board concluded it had jurisdiction and ordered the issuance of certificates to the union.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by taking a collective agreement with a term of less than one year to a final offer vote.

A group of employees filed an application to terminate bargaining rights.

The Board found that the collective agreement did not operate retroactively and therefore its term violated section 58(1) of the Act.

The Board determined the collective agreement commenced on the date of execution, making the termination application untimely.

The unfair labour practice complaint was dismissed as the union's conduct was ambiguous.

The applicant filed a reprisal complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after being terminated.

Concurrently, his union filed a grievance which was settled, resulting in his reinstatement and back pay, which he accepted.

The applicant sought to continue his OHSA complaint to obtain additional relief.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that by accepting the benefits of the grievance settlement, the applicant had elected to proceed under the collective agreement pursuant to section 50(2) of the OHSA.

The Board also exercised its discretion under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act to decline to inquire further, as doing so would undermine the grievance settlement process.

The union referred a grievance to the Board under s. 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the employer failed to apply the Principal Agreement to work on a blast furnace.

The union argued that a previous consent order of the Board regarding a similar grievance established that the work was construction work and that the employer was bound by the agreement, relying on res judicata and issue estoppel.

The Board rejected this argument, finding that the previous consent order was reached without litigating the merits, and therefore the doctrines did not apply.

The Board also declined to hear evidence regarding the settlement discussions that led to the consent order, emphasizing the importance of protecting the settlement process.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the employer engaged in intimidation and coercion during the organizing campaign.

The employer threatened to fire employees and shut down the job site if they voted for the union, and closely surveilled employees to prevent contact with union representatives.

The union lost the representation vote.

The Board found the employer blatantly violated the Labour Relations Act.

Due to recent legislative amendments to section 11, the Board could no longer automatically certify the union.

Instead, the Board ordered a second representation vote and granted extensive remedial relief, including union access to employees, a cease and desist order, and payment of the union's organizing costs.

Following the voluntary amalgamation of five hospitals into Grey Bruce Health Services, the parties disputed the appropriate bargaining unit structure under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The employer proposed two units, while the unions proposed either three or four units.

The Board rejected the employer's novel two-unit proposal and OPSEU's three-unit proposal, finding that maintaining the existing four-unit structure (registered nurses, paramedical, service, and office/clerical) was appropriate given the current upheaval in the hospital sector.

The parties subsequently agreed to Minutes of Settlement defining the four units and arranging representation votes.

In an application for certification by the Labourers' International Union of North America, the parties disputed the eligibility of several individuals to cast ballots in a representation vote.

The Board applied the Seegmiller test to determine whether the challenged individuals spent the majority of their time performing construction labourers' work on the application date.

The Board concluded that the work performed by 'servicemen' or 'handymen', which included general repair and clean-up work, constituted bargaining unit work despite overlapping with the core jurisdictions of other trades.

Consequently, the ballots of the servicemen and certain other individuals were ordered to be counted, while the ballots of those who did not perform bargaining unit work on the application date were ordered destroyed.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent stagehands employed by the responding party at a seasonal outdoor concert venue.

The application was filed in February, during the venue's off-season, when no employees were actually performing bargaining unit work.

The responding parties brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application on the basis that there were no employees in the bargaining unit on the application date.

The Board applied the bright line test from the theatrical and construction industries, holding that because employment in this industry is seasonal and transitory, individuals must be actually at work on the application date to be considered employees in the bargaining unit.

Since no employees were working on the application date, the application for certification was dismissed.

In an application for certification, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined the voter eligibility of two individuals who were not at work on the application date.

The Board found that both individuals performed work on an extremely erratic basis and were on indefinite layoff with no contemplated recall date.

Applying established Board jurisprudence, the Board concluded that their tenuous relationship with the employer was insufficient to ground an employment relationship for voting purposes.

Their ballots were directed to be destroyed.

The Board also directed the counting of five other segregated ballots and dismissed requests for reconsideration of an earlier decision.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging that her employer engaged in reprisals against her for having filed a human rights complaint regarding sexual harassment.

The employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss the complaint due to undue delay, lack of jurisdiction, and because the matters were previously settled under the Human Rights Code.

The Board declined to inquire into allegations prior to 1996 due to extreme delay and lack of reasonable explanation.

The Board also held that sexual harassment allegations should be pursued under the Human Rights Code, not the OHSA.

The Board found no evidence that the applicant sought to enforce the OHSA prior to April 1996, and dismissed the reprisal allegations for that period.

The matter was re-listed to deal solely with the remaining timely health and safety issues raised in an April 1996 letter.

The applicants, a group of employees, alleged that the union violated its duty of fair representation and the statutory requirements for ratification votes by failing to explicitly inform them that their employment with the employer was terminated following the sale of their plant.

The union brought a motion to dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board found that the union had accurately described the settlement terms at the ratification meeting and could not be faulted for the applicants' erroneous assumptions.

The Board exercised its discretion to dismiss the application without a hearing, concluding there were no material facts to support the allegations of bad faith, dishonesty, or misrepresentation.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees at a retail store.

During the organizing drive, the employer engaged in a campaign that included daily meetings and managers repeatedly questioning employees about the union.

Crucially, management refused to answer employee questions about whether the store would close if the union was successful, which the Board found intentionally fueled employee fears for their job security.

The Board concluded that this conduct violated section 70 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that the resulting representation vote did not reflect the true wishes of the employees.

The Board certified the union pursuant to section 11 of the Act.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by discontinuing the practice of providing free movie passes to newly unionized front-of-house employees immediately after their first collective agreement was signed.

The employer argued it was merely enforcing an 'entire agreement' clause.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the employer was entitled to rely on the clause, its differential treatment of the front-of-house staff compared to unionized projectionists (who continued to receive passes) demonstrated an anti-union animus.

The Board declared a violation of section 72 and ordered the employer to cease and desist the discriminatory practice.

In an application for certification, the union and employer agreed on a bargaining unit description that excluded 'office and clerical staff'.

The sole remaining issue was whether receptionists fell within this exclusion.

The Board found that while receptionists shared some community of interest with bargaining unit employees, their duties were primarily administrative and clerical in nature, involving the collection of information that flowed to the accounting staff.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the receptionists fell within the office and clerical exclusion and were excluded from the bargaining unit.

A final certificate was issued.

The applicant union applied for certification and a representation vote was held.

Several employees objected to being included in the bargaining unit, raising concerns related to community of interest.

The Board applied the test from The Hospital for Sick Children and concluded that the objecting employees' allegations, even if true, would not change the result of the application.

As more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board issued a final decision without a hearing, defined the appropriate bargaining unit, and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant employer applied under section 65(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to terminate the responding party union's bargaining rights.

The union brought a motion to dismiss the application for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board found that the union had not slept on its rights and was making efforts to bargain, despite unsmooth negotiations.

Applying the principle that section 65(2) is to be used as a shield and not a sword, the Board granted the motion and dismissed the employer's application.

The National Basketball Referees Association applied for a declaration that the National Basketball Association engaged in an unlawful lock-out in Ontario.

The NBA argued that Ontario labour legislation did not apply because the employment relationship was based in the United States and games in Ontario were infrequent.

The Board found that an employment relationship existed in Ontario, the NBRA was a trade union under the Act, and the lock-out was unlawful because the mandatory conciliation process had not been completed.

The Board ordered the NBA to assign NBRA members to games played in Ontario.

Following the merger of two hospitals to form the North Bay General Hospital, the applicant union and intervenor union agreed that a sale of a business and intermingling of employees had occurred under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

The parties agreed to a representation vote but disputed the appropriate bargaining unit configuration.

The applicant sought a single all-employee unit, while the intervenor sought two separate units for service and clerical workers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that a single, broader-based all-employee unit was appropriate, consistent with its jurisprudence favouring comprehensive units to avoid fragmentation and promote stability.

A representation vote was ordered for the single unit.