J. A. Ronson

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees in the respondent's Leaf Division.

The parties agreed on most of the bargaining unit description but disputed whether seasonal employees should be included.

The respondent argued that the application was made out of season and seasonal employees should be excluded, relying on exceptions for canning and tobacco harvesting.

The Board found that the respondent's operations involved processing, not harvesting, and that the application was made in-season.

The Board concluded that seasonal employees shared a community of interest with permanent employees and included them in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of restaurant employees at a Cara Operations Limited location, seeking to displace the incumbent union, Local 88.

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

Local 88 notified the Board that it wished to abandon its bargaining rights, leading the Board to declare that Local 88 no longer represented the employees.

Finding that the applicant is a trade union and that more than 55 percent of the employees in the agreed-upon bargaining unit were members, the Board ordered a certificate to issue to the applicant.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated the statutory freeze provisions of section 81 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to grant interval wage increases to bargaining unit employees in 1990 and 1991.

The employer did not attend the hearing.

The Board found that the employer had an established pattern of granting automatic wage increases at intervals during the calendar year, which created a reasonable expectation among employees.

The Board held that the failure to pay these increases during the statutory freeze period constituted a breach of section 81, and ordered the employer to implement the wage increases forthwith.

One Board member dissented, citing the union's delay in bringing the complaint.

In an application for certification, the respondent alleged that a person for whom the applicant submitted membership evidence did not pay the required $1.00 fee.

A Labour Relations Officer's inquiry revealed that a fellow employee paid the fee on the signer's behalf, and the signer reimbursed the employee prior to the completion of the Form 9 Declaration.

The Board found this satisfied the requirement under section 1(1) of the Act and declined to direct a hearing into the non-pay allegation.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed a petition in opposition.

The Board held an inquiry into a non-pay allegation regarding union membership evidence and the voluntariness of the petition.

The Board found the membership evidence reliable because the Form 9 declarant made thorough inquiries.

However, the Board found the petition was not voluntary because it was circulated during working hours at work stations, creating a reasonable perception that management would learn who refused to sign.

The Board certified the union.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) alleged that a rationalization plan transferring obstetrics and paediatrics services from St. Mary's General Hospital to Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital constituted a 'sale of a business' under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that a sale of part of St. Mary's business had occurred and that the employees were intermingled.

However, because ONA represented only a small percentage of the resulting 'all nurses' bargaining unit at Kitchener-Waterloo, the Board declined to order a representation vote and declared that ONA no longer held bargaining rights.

The Board also found that Kitchener-Waterloo breached section 66 of the Act by treating St. Mary's nurses as new hires rather than offering them preferential transfer rights, doing so specifically to avoid successor rights obligations.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of carpenters engaged in the installation of exterior cladding systems.

The respondent employer argued for a broader unit of all carpenters and carpenters' apprentices.

The Board ruled that in the construction industry, a craft union must seek to represent all members of its craft employed by the respondent, and therefore rejected the applicant's restricted description.

The Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and appointed an officer to inquire into the employment status of certain individuals characterized by the respondent as independent contractors.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for journeymen and apprentice sheet metal workers employed by the respondent in the construction industry.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant had the requisite membership support of more than fifty-five per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board issued certificates to the applicant for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector in the Province of Ontario, and for all other sectors in the specified geographic areas.

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

The Board previously determined the appropriate bargaining unit description, which excluded employees at a specific location.

The respondent employer objected to counting the ballots, arguing that employees who subsequently moved into the bargaining unit should have their ballots counted.

The Board dismissed the objection, holding that the determination of employee support must be made as of the application date, regardless of subsequent workforce fluctuations.

The Board directed that the ballots be counted in accordance with its previous decision.

A dissenting board member argued that the bargaining unit should have been broader and that the subsequent events demonstrated the wisdom of a broader unit.

The union applied for a declaration that STM, All-Way, and the TTC be treated as one employer under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively that a sale of a business occurred under s. 63.

The Board found that STM and the TTC were not under common control or direction, as the TTC had passed control of the subcontracted station wagon service to STM.

However, the Board declared that All-Way and STM, which were wholly-owned subsidiaries of the same parent corporation, carried on related activities under common control and direction.

The Board exercised its discretion to make a one-employer declaration to protect the union's bargaining rights, which would otherwise be undermined by the transfer of the contracting work from All-Way to STM.

The application regarding the TTC was dismissed.

The Energy and Chemical Workers Union filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.

Prior to the hearing, the grievor requested to be substituted as the complainant.

At the hearing, the complainant union failed to appear.

The respondent objected to the grievor's substitution request.

The Board denied the substitution request and dismissed the complaint due to the complainant's failure to appear and prosecute the matter.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by denying reporting pay to afternoon shift employees who were sent home due to severe weather.

The employer had determined that gale-force winds and flying debris created an emergency endangering employee safety, necessitating a shutdown of the shift.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement granted the employer the subjective discretion to determine when an emergency shutdown was necessary to protect life and safety.

The Board concluded the employer's decision was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and was in fact reasonable under the circumstances.

The union applied for certification of employees at the employer's Bellamy/Progress location.

The employer argued the bargaining unit should encompass all its locations within Metropolitan Toronto.

The Board applied the community of interest criteria and found that the single-location bargaining unit proposed by the union was appropriate, as there was no functional integration or interchange of employees between the different locations.

The Board also resolved disputes over the inclusion of specific individuals in the bargaining unit and ordered the ballots from the pre-hearing representation vote to be counted.

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

The respondent employer failed to file a response and made a last-minute telephone request for an adjournment on the morning of the hearing without notifying the applicant.

The Board denied the adjournment request, noting the statutory requirement for expeditious resolution of such applications.

Proceeding on the merits, the Board found the respondent had failed to make reasonable or expeditious efforts to conclude a collective agreement and directed that the first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer and a group of objecting employees argued the application should be dismissed or a deferred representation vote held because the current workforce was not representative of the future workforce, as several labourers were expected to be laid off and new employees hired once the facility became fully operational.

The Board rejected this 'build-up' or 'build-down' argument, finding that the expected workforce changes did not warrant deferring the application or ordering a vote.

As the union had demonstrated membership support of over 55% and the remaining disputes over the bargaining unit description could not affect the union's right to certification, the Board granted interim certification.

The applicant union applied to displace the incumbent union as the bargaining agent for the employees.

Following a pre-hearing representation vote won by the applicant, the incumbent union and an employee filed objections and an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the applicant distributed false and coercive campaign literature.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding no prima facie case of intimidation or coercion under sections 70 and 71 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also declined to order a new representation vote, concluding that the campaign propaganda, even if exaggerated or false, did not undermine the reliability of the secret ballot.

The union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration, while a group of employees applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

The Board determined it was appropriate to consider the first contract application first.

The Board found that the employer engaged in surface bargaining, refused to recognize the union's bargaining authority, and adopted uncompromising positions without reasonable justification.

The employer's conduct, including delaying bargaining and refusing to provide accurate wage information, demonstrated a failure to make reasonable efforts to conclude a collective agreement.

The Board directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration and dismissed the termination application.

One Board Member dissented, arguing the termination application should have been considered first.

The applicants, employees of a construction company, applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union moved to dismiss the application on the basis that the named applicant was not at work on the application date and therefore lacked standing.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the application was brought on behalf of all petitioners, not just the named applicant.

The Board also found that the petition supporting the application was voluntary, despite the presence of family members of the owners at the meeting where signatures were collected, because a secret ballot was held and signatures were kept confidential.

A representation vote was ordered.

One Board member dissented, arguing that the application should have been dismissed because the union was entitled to know the identity of the applicants.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of non-management supervisors.

The respondent employer argued these individuals were not employees under the Labour Relations Act because they exercised managerial functions or were employed in a confidential capacity.

Following a Labour Relations Officer's voluminous report, the union requested an oral hearing.

The Board directed all parties to file complete written statements of fact and law, with transcript and case references, prior to scheduling the oral hearing.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its certification applications after meetings with a Labour Relations Officer had commenced and after the respondent employer raised 'non-pay' allegations regarding the union's membership evidence.

The employer argued the applications should be dismissed and the non-pay allegations adjudicated.

The Board declined to adjudicate the non-pay allegations in the context of a withdrawn application.

However, interpreting its Practice Note No. 7 in light of recent procedural changes, the Board held that a request to withdraw made after a Labour Relations Officer has met with the parties should result in the dismissal of the applications.

The applications were accordingly dismissed.