J. A. Ronson

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of municipal inside workers.

The responding party employer disputed the employee status of ten individuals, arguing they exercised managerial functions or were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations under section 1(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that only the Records Management Coordinator was excluded due to her regular involvement with confidential labour relations information.

The remaining nine individuals, including planners, inspectors, and secretarial staff, were found to be employees within the meaning of the Act, as their access to confidential information or exercise of managerial authority was irregular or insufficient to warrant exclusion.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a site-specific bargaining unit of employees at a single movie theatre complex.

The responding party employer argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should encompass multiple theatres in the Metropolitan Toronto area to avoid fragmentation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the site-specific bargaining unit was appropriate for collective bargaining, consistent with previous Board decisions.

As the union demonstrated support from more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the unit, the Board ordered that a certificate issue.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit composed entirely of registered and graduate nursing assistants at the responding hospital.

The hospital argued that the proposed unit was inappropriate due to concerns about fragmentation and asserted that the employees should be included in a broader service or paramedical unit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the test from Hospital for Sick Children, finding that the nursing assistants shared a sufficient community of interest and that a separate unit would not cause serious labour relations problems.

The Board granted the application and directed that a certificate issue, with one Board Member dissenting on the grounds of undue fragmentation.

The responding party employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the applicant's complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).

The employer argued that the applicant was precluded from proceeding before the Board under section 50(2) of the OHSA because he had already elected to have his discharge dealt with through arbitration under a collective agreement.

The applicant argued that he could not have made such an election because he was unaware of the OHSA reprisal aspect of his discharge until after the grievance was filed.

The Board granted the employer's motion, finding that the applicant had elected to have the propriety of his discharge adjudicated through arbitration and could not change forums midstream.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union sought to certify a site-specific bargaining unit of employees at one of the employer's many locations in Metropolitan Toronto.

The employer argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should encompass all of its locations across the municipality due to the integrated nature of its operations and employee interchange.

The Board found that the single-location unit proposed by the union was not appropriate for collective bargaining, consistent with its prior jurisprudence regarding multi-location service enterprises.

The application for certification was dismissed.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether the labour relations of Transit Windsor fall under provincial or federal jurisdiction, following the union's request for a conciliation officer.

Transit Windsor operates a municipal transit system but also runs a regular and continuous extra-provincial bus service to Detroit, Michigan.

Applying constitutional principles, the Board determined that the extra-provincial services, though comprising only 3% of total working hours, constituted a continuous and regular part of an indivisible undertaking.

Consequently, the Board advised the Minister that the labour relations between the parties fall within federal jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act alleging that an unknown employee placed a pair of women's panties in his mail bank.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, noting that it is not an investigatory agency and cannot proceed against unknown persons.

Furthermore, the Board found that the alleged conduct, even if true, did not establish a breach of the Act as there was no indication the applicant was exercising rights or engaging in activity protected by the Act.

The union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of employees at Hornco Plastics Inc.'s Whitby plant.

The responding parties argued that Hornco and Horn Plastics Ltd. should be treated as a single employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, and that the appropriate bargaining unit should encompass both the Whitby plant and Horn's Pickering plant.

The Board found that the two plants were highly integrated, with a single payroll, shared management, and significant employee interchange.

The Board exercised its discretion to declare the companies a single employer and found the broader two-plant unit to be appropriate to avoid serious labour relations problems.

As the union had less than forty percent membership support in the broader unit, the application for certification was dismissed.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer failed to bargain in good faith when its elected trustees refused to ratify a tentative collective agreement.

The employer argued that the settlement was expressly subject to ratification and that severe provincial funding cuts justified the trustees' decision to reject the settlement.

The Board found that the employer did not breach its duty to bargain in good faith, as the change in economic circumstances was real and compelling, and the employer was entitled to reconsider its bargaining position.

The complaint was dismissed, and the parties were directed to return to the bargaining table.

Following a prior decision finding a sale of part of a business from St. Mary's Hospital to Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital and an unfair labour practice, the Board determined the effective date for terminating the applicant's bargaining rights.

The Board held it has jurisdiction under section 64(6) of the Labour Relations Act to make its declarations retroactive to the date of the sale to prevent labour relations instability.

The Board also ordered a remedy for the section 67 breach, directing the respondent to offer the 74 newly-created positions to the appropriate nurses from a combined pool, with potential damages subject to mitigation.

The applicant union sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to reinstate an employee who was allegedly discharged for his involvement in a union organizing drive.

The responding employer claimed the employee was discharged for covering up a theft.

In its first decision interpreting the new interim relief power, the Board established a test requiring an arguable case on the merits and a balancing of the harm to both parties.

Finding that the discharge of a union organizer has a severe chilling effect on an organizing campaign that cannot easily be remedied later, the Board concluded the balance of harm favoured the applicant.

The Board ordered the employee's interim reinstatement pending the final disposition of the unfair labour practice complaint, but denied the request for interim compensation.

The Practical Nurses Federation of Ontario applied for certification to represent a unit of registered and graduate nursing assistants at the Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital.

The Hospital raised a preliminary objection based on res judicata, arguing that the Board had recently dismissed a prior application between the same parties for the same bargaining unit, finding it inappropriate.

The applicant argued that material facts had changed since the prior decision.

The Board held that the facts relied upon as 'new' were anticipated in the prior decision and did not constitute a material change sufficient to permit re-litigation.

The application was dismissed on the basis of issue estoppel, with one Board Member dissenting.

The applicant union sought to certify a bargaining unit composed exclusively of salaried supervisors at the respondent's manufacturing plant.

The respondent employer argued that the supervisors exercised managerial functions under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act and were therefore not employees eligible for collective bargaining.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed the supervisors' duties, including their authority to initiate discipline, grant time off, and direct work.

The Board concluded that the supervisors exercised managerial functions and dismissed the application for certification.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of full-time drivers, while the respondent employer argued for an all-employee unit including both full-time and part-time drivers to prevent fragmentation.

The Board applied its normal practice of excluding part-time employees at the request of either party, finding no serious labour relations problems that would render the applicant's proposed unit inappropriate.

The Board certified the applicant for the full-time unit.

One Board member dissented, arguing for a single unit since the only difference between the groups was hours worked.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of a business and intermingling of employees occurred between the respondent companies, and requested a representation vote.

The Board found that a sale of a business had occurred when Union Felt purchased Almac Industries Inc. and subsequently integrated operations.

The Board concluded that intermingling of employees had taken place and ordered a representation vote to determine which of the two trade unions should represent the combined bargaining unit.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of the respondent's drivers in the Sudbury, Sturgeon Falls, and Espanola districts.

The respondent employer argued that the only appropriate unit would encompass all its drivers in the entire Northern Ontario region.

The Board found that the applicant's proposed unit was appropriate for collective bargaining, noting that it did not present serious labour relations problems and that the distances in Northern Ontario provided disincentives to a region-wide unit.

A certificate was issued for the applicant's proposed unit, with one Board Member dissenting.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit consisting of all employees of the respondent, including both warehouse and office/clerical staff.

The respondent employer and objecting employees argued that office and clerical staff should be placed in a separate bargaining unit, relying on historical Board policy.

The Board rejected the argument that exceptional circumstances were required to combine the groups, noting that modern workplaces have evolved.

Applying the community of interest test, the Board found that the employees shared common hours, benefits, wage determination methods, and frequently transferred between office and warehouse roles.

The Board concluded that the all-employee unit was appropriate and certified the applicant.

The applicant union applied for direction of settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration under the Labour Relations Act.

Subsequently, the union applied under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA), asserting the respondent employer is a hospital.

The employer argued the Board should dismiss or defer the first contract application.

The Board declined to dismiss the application for abuse of process but adjourned the hearing pending the Minister's decision on the respondent's status under the HLDAA, noting the balance of convenience favoured avoiding a potentially null proceeding.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights, having previously withdrawn a similar application when it appeared she had insufficient support.

The respondent union brought a motion requesting the Board to exercise its discretion under section 105(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act to dismiss the second application and impose a bar on further applications, arguing that the representation issue had already been tested.

The Board dismissed the union's motion, finding that the representation issue was not truly determined in the first application and that balancing the interests of labour relations stability and the right to test representation favoured allowing the second application to proceed.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent security guards employed by the respondent.

The parties agreed on all matters in dispute and waived their right to a formal hearing.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act.

Based on the documentary evidence of membership, the Board was satisfied that more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant.

The Board ordered that a certificate will issue to the applicant.