J. A. Ronson

The complainant trade union alleged that the respondent hospital employer violated the statutory freeze provisions of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA) and the Labour Relations Act (LRA).

The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Board lacked jurisdiction and that the matter should be determined by an interest board of arbitration constituted under the HLDAA.

The Board dismissed the objection, finding that the Legislature intended for the Board to hear and determine unfair labour practice complaints, including allegations of wrongfully altered working conditions, in the hospital sector.

The proceeding was ordered to continue.

The complainant, an employee in the procurement office, refused to work citing health concerns related to secondhand smoke.

The employer investigated, accommodated the non-smoking employees by segregating them, and clarified its smoking policy.

The complainant continued to refuse to work, demanding an immediate total smoking ban, and was subsequently suspended for one day and then three days.

She filed a complaint alleging the suspensions and other employer actions were reprisals under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the complainant's continued refusal was not motivated by bona fide health and safety concerns, but rather by anger over other workplace issues, and that the employer's disciplinary actions were justified and not in violation of the Act.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer argued that the union should be required to prove its trade union status, despite a Board finding of status made the previous day in a separate proceeding involving a different employer, because the respondent had no notice of that hearing.

The respondent also objected to the Labour Relations Officer conducting a meeting while the status issue was outstanding.

The Board rejected both arguments, holding that under section 105 of the Labour Relations Act, a previous finding of status is prima facie evidence in subsequent proceedings, and the respondent failed to call evidence to rebut it.

The Board also confirmed that an outstanding status issue does not preclude an Officer's meeting.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated the Labour Relations Act by terminating the grievor's employment due to his involvement in a union organizing campaign.

The employer maintained that the grievor was discharged for just cause, specifically a history of poor performance and minor misconduct following a final warning.

The Board found that the employer's concerns about the grievor's performance were legitimate and sincerely held.

The Board concluded that the decision to terminate was not motivated by anti-union animus and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant trade union sought a determination under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act as to whether a Print Shop Supervisor and five Behaviour Counsellors were employees within the meaning of the Act.

The Board found that the Print Shop Supervisor was not an employee because she was employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

However, the Board found that the Behaviour Counsellors did not exercise managerial functions or have access to confidential labour relations information, and were therefore employees under the Act.

The applicant employee sought to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights under sections 57 and 60 of the Labour Relations Act.

The bargaining rights derived from a voluntary recognition agreement, and no collective agreement had been signed.

The Board dismissed the section 57 application, ruling that certification is a pre-condition to such an application.

Regarding the section 60 application, the Board found that the union was entitled to represent the employees at the time the voluntary recognition agreement was entered into, as the membership cards submitted were sufficient evidence of majority support.

The application was dismissed.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer unlawfully discharged a key union organizer and interfered with the organizing campaign.

The employer claimed the discharge and employee communications were due to a price war with competitors.

The Board found the employer's explanation for the discharge lacked credibility and concluded the employee was terminated for his trade union activity, violating the Labour Relations Act.

Finding that the employer's illegal conduct made it unlikely that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained through a representation vote, the Board certified the union pursuant to section 8 of the Act and ordered the reinstatement of the discharged employee with compensation.

The applicant filed an application for a declaration terminating the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union argued the application was untimely because a collective agreement, executed after the application was filed, had a retroactive duration clause that covered the date of the application.

The Board held that the timeliness of a termination application is determined at the time it is filed.

A collective agreement signed subsequent to the application cannot retroactively render it untimely.

The application was found to be timely and a representation vote was directed.

The applicant filed an application for a declaration that the respondent union no longer represents the employees of the intervener employer.

The respondent union argued the application was untimely.

The Board reviewed section 61(2) of the Labour Relations Act, which governs the timeliness of termination applications following the appointment of a conciliation officer.

The Board found that the application could not be filed before the later of twelve months after the conciliation officer's appointment or thirty days after the Minister's notice not to appoint a conciliation board.

As the application was filed prematurely, it was dismissed as untimely without a hearing.

During a complaint alleging a violation of section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the complainant summoned an inspector with the Occupational Health and Safety Branch to testify.

The Ministry of Labour waived the inspector's non-compellability under section 34(2) of the Act, and the Director authorized the inspector to testify under section 34(3).

The respondent objected, arguing that policy considerations against an inspector testifying voluntarily should preclude the testimony.

The Board held that section 34(2) only addresses compellability, not competence, and found the inspector to be a competent witness.

During a hearing for a reconsideration of a Board decision granting early termination of a collective agreement, the respondent company brought a motion to dismiss the interveners' application after the interveners concluded their evidence.

The company argued it should not have to elect whether to call evidence.

The Board characterized the motion as analogous to a non-suit motion in civil proceedings and directed that the company and the applicant union (who supported the motion) be put to their election as to whether they intend to call evidence before ruling on the motion.

During a hearing for a request to reconsider a decision consenting to the early termination of a collective agreement, the intervening union (USWA) sought to introduce union membership cards to corroborate evidence of an organizing campaign.

The incumbent union and the employer objected, arguing that if the cards were admitted, they should be entitled to examine them, including the identities of the signatories.

The Board held that section 111(1) of the Labour Relations Act protected the confidentiality of the cards even outside a certification application.

Balancing the limited probative value of the cards as hearsay evidence against the potential prejudice to the other parties and the legislative intent to protect union membership confidentiality, the Board exercised its discretion to refuse to admit the membership cards into evidence.

The complainant union alleged that the grievor, a bartender/waiter, was discharged during his probationary period due to his union involvement and attempts to assert rights under the collective agreement, contrary to the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer claimed the discharge was due to allegations of theft and customer complaints.

The majority of the Board found that while the circumstances raised a strong suspicion of anti-union animus, the employer had satisfied the reverse onus by proving the discharge was motivated solely by the allegations of theft reported by a trusted employee.

The complaint was dismissed, with one Board member dissenting.

The applicant union filed a certification application requesting a pre-hearing representation vote.

A prior certification application by the same union for the same employees was still outstanding, pending a decision on the union's request to withdraw it and the employer's request to impose a bar.

The majority of the Board held that subsection 103(3) of the Labour Relations Act does not preclude the administrative processing of a subsequent application, including the appointment of a Labour Relations Officer, before a final decision is made on the prior application.

The Board appointed an officer to confer with the parties and gather information for the pre-hearing vote.

The dissenting member would have delayed the appointment until the prior application was resolved.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent occasional teachers employed by the respondent school board.

The parties disputed the appropriate bargaining unit description, specifically whether occasional teachers providing French language instruction under Part XI of the Education Act should be included in the same unit as English language occasional teachers.

The respondent also challenged the union's membership evidence, which was collected by mail and verified by telephone.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board first ruled that the membership evidence was acceptable.

On the bargaining unit issue, the Board applied the community of interest test and found that the Part XI occasional teachers shared a sufficiently coherent community of interest with the other occasional teachers.

The Board concluded that an all-inclusive bargaining unit was appropriate and directed that the segregated ballots be counted.

The applicant employee filed an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights on the same day a conciliation officer was appointed.

The union argued the application was untimely and that the applicant lacked status as an employee because he had not paid union dues.

The Board held the application was timely because it was not made 'after' the date the conciliation officer was appointed.

The Board also found the applicant remained an employee in the bargaining unit because, although he failed to pay dues, the union had not required his discharge under the collective agreement.

Finally, the Board concluded the petition opposing the union was voluntary and directed a representation vote.

The parties settled unfair labour practice complaints prior to the scheduled hearing and requested the Board to issue their Minutes of Settlement as an Order of the Board and remain seized of its implementation.

The Board declined to issue an order, noting the settlement did not specify what order was requested or the basis for it.

The Board also declined to remain seized, advising the parties that the settlement is binding and enforceable pursuant to subsection 89(7) of the Labour Relations Act.

The complaints were ordered terminated one year from the date of the decision.

Following a representation vote for union certification, the parties disputed whether five lead hands exercised managerial functions under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act and whether two ballots were spoiled.

The Board found that four of the lead hands exercised only minor supervisory functions without effective control over the employment relationship and were included in the bargaining unit.

One lead hand, who had authority to discipline and suspend employees without prior consultation, was found to exercise managerial functions and was excluded.

The Board also upheld the Returning Officer's ruling that two ambiguously marked ballots were spoiled and should not be counted.

The complainant filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the Hospital, VS Services Ltd., and the Union.

The Board entertained several preliminary motions.

The complaint against the Hospital was dismissed on consent, as it was never the complainant's employer.

The Board struck the complainant's late-filed particulars for failing to comply with a prior Board direction.

The Board also dismissed allegations relating to sections 63, 91(18), and 95 of the Labour Relations Act, as they were inapplicable.

However, the Board refused to dismiss the entire complaint against VS Services Ltd., allowing the allegations under sections 66(c), 67, and 68 to proceed.

The applicant union local sought a declaration under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent union local was not its successor following a merger ordered by the international union president.

The Board found that the employer intervener had status to participate but could not lead evidence on the business consequences of the merger.

The Board determined that the merger was conducted in accordance with the union's constitution, which did not require a membership vote.

However, the Board raised concerns about the effect of section 137(2) of the Act and the provincial agreement on the application, and referred the matter for a further hearing on that issue.