J. A. Ronson

The Pembroke Civic Hospital applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, following a directive to close and transfer its operations to the Pembroke General Hospital.

The parties disputed the appropriate bargaining unit structure and the identity of the resulting bargaining agents for the intermingled employees.

The Board determined that the broader-based bargaining unit structure already in place at the surviving hospital (the General) was appropriate, noting its 25-year history of success and the general labour relations trend toward broader units.

The Board ordered a representation vote to allow employees to choose their bargaining agent from among all the affected trade unions.

The applicant union filed displacement applications for certification and section 96 unfair labour practice complaints against the employer and the incumbent union.

At the outset of the hearing, the incumbent union and the employer brought motions to dismiss the applications.

The Board granted the motions, finding that the allegations of improper conduct during the representation vote campaign, even if true, would not support a finding of a breach of the Act or undermine the vote results.

The Board also noted the applicant failed to raise its concerns prior to the counting of the ballots.

The applications and complaints were dismissed.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of employees of KPM Industries Ltd. in Onaping Falls.

The employer argued the bargaining unit should be limited to two specific divisions currently operating in the municipality, to exclude potential future employees of a third division that performs construction work.

The Board held that the appropriate employer name is the sole legal entity, KPM Industries Ltd., and declined to restrict the bargaining unit to specific divisions, finding no cogent reason to depart from its usual practice of certifying municipal-wide units.

The union applied for an interim order to prevent the employer from unilaterally excluding seven employees from the bargaining unit at the commencement of a lawful strike.

The employer argued the Board's jurisdiction to grant interim relief was limited to procedural matters under section 98 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board held that section 16.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act grants it a general power to make interim orders, which prevails over section 98 of the LRA due to the conflict provision in section 32 of the SPPA.

Applying the two-pronged test for interim relief, the Board found the union had established an arguable case of unfair labour practices and that the balance of labour relations harm favoured granting the order, as the employer's actions undermined the strike and union morale.

The union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration, and an employee subsequently applied for termination of bargaining rights.

During the hearing, the employer accepted the union's proposed collective agreement.

The Board ruled orally that the parties had effected a proposed collective agreement, which required a ratification vote.

The union sought reconsideration of this ruling, arguing that contract principles should not apply and that the proposal was implicitly withdrawn.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request.

The Board also held that the subsequent ratification vote in favour of the collective agreement could not be construed as an expression of employee wishes regarding the termination application, and directed the parties to make further submissions on the status of the two applications.

The responding employer requested reconsideration of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that directed a first contract to be settled by arbitration.

The employer alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias because the Vice-Chair who authored the decision had engaged in discussions with, and accepted a retainer from, a federal trade union (CALPA) around the time the decision was issued.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the Vice-Chair's relationship with an unrelated trade union operating in a different jurisdiction did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

A dissenting Board Member would have set the matter down for an open, public hearing.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification for a bargaining unit of security guards employed by the responding party.

The responding party and intervenor objected to the application on the grounds that the applicant had recently withdrawn a previous application, and the responding party disputed whether the applicant had sufficient membership evidence.

The majority of the Board directed that a representation vote be held by mail and that the ballots be counted, deferring the substantive objections to a post-vote hearing.

The Board declined to order the responding party to provide employee names and addresses to the applicant at this stage.

One Board member dissented, stating he would have sealed the ballot box until the jurisdictional issues were resolved.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether Bellwoods Centre for Community Living Inc. is a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA).

Bellwoods provides support services to physically disabled adults to enable independent living.

Applying the factors from the Red Cross decision, the Board concluded that the services provided are essential to the health and safety of the clients, who are highly dependent on them.

The Board advised the Minister that Bellwoods is an 'other institution' and therefore a 'hospital' under the HLDAA.

The applicant union applied for certification and won a representation vote.

The employer argued that a second vote should be ordered under the 'build-up' principle because it was opening a second plant and significantly expanding its full-time workforce.

The Board held that the build-up principle survived the enactment of Bill 7, but found that the anticipated increase in employees did not meet the 50% threshold required to order a new vote, particularly because part-time employees were included in the all-employee bargaining unit.

The Board certified the union, with one member dissenting.

The applicant filed an application for termination of the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The Board noted that a first contract application brought by the union was already pending.

Pursuant to section 43(23) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board directed that the termination application be considered together with the first contract application by the panel scheduled to hear the latter.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging that the employer distributed a video and letter to employees shortly before a representation vote that materially misrepresented the statutory freeze provisions under section 86 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union also alleged that the employer's statements regarding plant competitiveness were threatening.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that both parties had provided incomplete but not materially false descriptions of the statutory freeze, and that the employer's statements about competitiveness fell within the permissible limits of employer speech.

As the union lost the representation vote, the certification application was dismissed.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The most recent collective agreement between the responding party employer and the intervenor union had expired, and a conciliation officer had been appointed.

Under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act and the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the open period for a certification application closes when a conciliation officer is appointed or the agreement expires, whichever is later.

As no subsequent agreement had been entered into since the conciliation officer's appointment, the Board found the application untimely and dismissed it.

The Practical Nurses Federation of Ontario applied for certification to represent practical nurses employed by the responding party.

The responding party filed a timely response proposing a slightly different bargaining unit, and the Board ordered a representation vote based on the application and response.

After the vote was ordered, the responding party sought to amend its response to propose an 'all employee' bargaining unit.

The Board held that the responding party was bound by its original response, as allowing an amendment after the statutory deadline and after vote arrangements were made would prejudice the applicant and undermine the expedited certification process.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

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 union filed a certification application but withdrew it before a representation vote upon learning the employer had more employees than anticipated.

The Board permitted the withdrawal without imposing a bar.

The employer sought reconsideration, arguing that section 7(9) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 mandates a bar upon withdrawal.

The Board held that section 7(9) grants discretion to determine whether to impose a bar and its length.

Finding no abuse of process and that employee wishes had not yet been tested, the Board declined to impose a bar.

A certificate was issued in the union's subsequent successful application.

The Association of Law Officers of the Crown applied for certification to represent articling students employed by the Crown.

OPSEU intervened, claiming it already held bargaining rights for these students under an Order-in-Council establishing bargaining units for Crown employees.

The applicants argued that articling students fell into a residual bargaining unit and challenged OPSEU's representation.

The Board interpreted the statutory framework and Orders-in-Council, concluding that articling students were properly included in the first bargaining unit for which OPSEU was designated as the bargaining agent.

Consequently, the certification application was untimely, and the related applications to terminate bargaining rights and alleging unfair labour practices were dismissed.

The union filed an application alleging the employer breached the statutory freeze provisions under section 86(1) of the Labour Relations Act by discontinuing an employee's short-term sickness benefits after he was laid off.

The employer argued that under the benefit plan pamphlet, coverage terminated upon cessation of employment.

The Board applied the 'reasonable expectations' test and found that the pamphlet did not contemplate the termination of vested benefits upon the cessation of the employment relationship.

The Board concluded that the employer's actions breached section 86(1) and ordered the reinstatement of the benefits.

The responding employers requested that the Board reconsider its decision to issue certificates to the applicant union, arguing that the Board failed to provide sufficient reasons for an earlier decision regarding the employee list.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the employers did not seek to introduce new evidence or make representations they had no prior opportunity to raise.

The Board held that a request for further reasons is not a sufficient ground to reconsider a decision to issue final certificates, and provided brief supplementary reasons explaining its evidentiary findings regarding the employees in question.

The applicant union filed applications for certification and unfair labour practice complaints against two temporary personnel agencies, Dare Personnel Inc. and Personnel Force Inc. The union sought bargaining rights for electricians supplied by the agencies to the federal Department of Public Works.

The Board determined as a preliminary issue whether the agencies were the employers of the electricians.

Applying the York Condominium factors, the Board found that fundamental control over the electricians' day-to-day work, including direction, supervision, and the authority to remove them from the site, rested with Public Works, not the agencies.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the personnel agencies were not the employers and dismissed the certification applications.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

A group of employees objected, raising several preliminary issues including the scheduling of expedited hearings, venue, notice to another union, the validity of membership cards, the adequacy of the Form A-4 declaration, the involvement of a perceived manager in organizing, and the relevance of a prior anti-union petition.

The Board dismissed all objections, finding that the union's membership evidence was valid, unambiguous, and superseded the prior petition.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and granted certification.