J. A. Ronson

The union applied for certification.

The employer and objecting employees alleged misconduct in the collection of membership evidence, including non-payment of the required $1 fee by one employee and misrepresentations by union organizers.

The Board found that one employee did not pay the fee and rejected his card, and gave no weight to cards collected by one organizer due to his misconduct and lack of credibility.

However, the remaining valid cards left the union in a vote position.

The Board dismissed the union's request for automatic certification under section 8, finding the employer's intemperate comments did not prevent the ascertainment of employees' true wishes.

A representation vote was ordered.

The union applied for certification to represent employees at the respondent's hatchery.

The employer objected, arguing the employees were employed in agriculture and thus excluded from the Labour Relations Act under section 2(b).

The union countered that section 2(b) violated the Charter.

The Board unanimously found that the hatchery employees were employed in agriculture.

On the preliminary issue of jurisdiction, the majority held that the Board is a 'court of competent jurisdiction' under section 24(1) of the Charter and has the authority under section 52(1) to determine whether the agricultural exemption is constitutional.

The employer's objection to jurisdiction was dismissed, and the matter was directed to be scheduled for a hearing on the Charter challenge.

A dissenting member would have found the Board lacked jurisdiction to strike down the exemption.

The complainant union (CUPE) alleged that the respondent university violated section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by prohibiting the University of Toronto Staff Association (UTSA) from using the university's internal mail service to distribute CUPE organizing materials.

UTSA had historically enjoyed unrestricted access to the mail system.

The university argued that permitting the distribution of union organizing materials would constitute employer support for a trade union, violating sections 13 and 64 of the Act.

The Board held that the university's restriction of an existing practice constituted interference with the union's rights.

The Board declared a violation of section 64 and directed the university to permit UTSA access to the internal mail service in the manner previously enjoyed.

The Carpenters' union filed unfair labour practice complaints against the Labourers' union and various employers, challenging subcontracting clauses in residential framing collective agreements.

The respondents moved to dismiss the complaints due to delay and abuse of process.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the Carpenters had delayed excessively in prosecuting the complaints, causing substantial prejudice to the respondents and striking at the heart of established bargaining relationships.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 89(4) of the Labour Relations Act to decline to inquire into the complaints and dismissed them.

The complainant, a youth services officer at a secured custody facility, refused a directive to move to another house during his shift, citing health and safety concerns for the remaining staff due to reduced staffing levels.

He was sent home without pay for the remainder of his shift and issued a letter of reprimand.

He filed a complaint alleging the employer's discipline violated section 24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the complainant's actions constituted insubordination rather than protected compliance with the Act, as section 23(1)(c) explicitly excludes correctional facility workers from the right to refuse unsafe work.

The Board also declined to substitute a different penalty under section 24(7).

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description and waived their right to a formal hearing, but disputed the employee status of six individuals.

The Board found that the union had sufficient membership support regardless of the status of the disputed individuals and issued a final certificate.

The Board declined the parties' request to appoint a Labour Relations Officer under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine the status of the six individuals, finding the request premature as bargaining had not yet commenced.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent.

The respondent and the incumbent union (Intervener #1) argued the application was untimely under section 61(2) of the Labour Relations Act because a conciliation officer had been appointed.

The applicant argued the incumbent union had abandoned its bargaining rights through inaction, rendering the conciliation appointment a nullity.

The Board held that in the face of the clear wording of section 61(2), it would not go behind the conciliation appointment based on alleged de facto abandonment.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant, an employee in the meat department bargaining unit, applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union locals representing three bargaining units at a retail food store.

The union argued the supporting employee petitions were invalid for failing to distinguish between the specific locals, and that the applicant lacked standing to apply on behalf of units he was not a member of.

The Board rejected both arguments, finding the employees clearly intended to reject the union generally and had designated the applicant to act on their behalf.

A representation vote was ordered for all three bargaining units.

The applicant employer referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the respondent union violated the no-strike provision of their collective agreement.

The employer claimed that the union president instigated work stoppages at multiple construction sites after the employer's president refused to provide him with an unsecured personal loan.

The Board found that union representatives, acting on the president's instructions, directed employees to cease working, constituting an illegal strike under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board granted a declaration that the union violated the collective agreement and ordered the union to compensate the employer for all resulting losses, including wages paid to employees for hours not worked during the stoppages.

The applicant unions sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act to bind Delform Construction Limited and Ilena Construction Limited to the provincial ICI agreement binding Hardrock Forming Company.

The Board found that Delform had an established collective bargaining relationship with Labourers' Local 183.

The Board dismissed the application, reasoning that issuing a related employer declaration would create a conflict with Local 183's established bargaining rights and precipitate a jurisdictional dispute.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the respondent was a successor employer following the purchase of a tavern and transfer of its liquor licence.

The respondent argued that no sale of a business occurred because the transaction involved a mortgagee in possession and the premises had been closed.

Alternatively, the respondent sought to terminate bargaining rights due to a substantial change in the character of the business, citing a shift to a 'goth' theme and new wave music.

The Board found that a sale of a business had occurred, as the essential elements, including the premises and liquor licence, were transferred.

The Board also dismissed the request to terminate bargaining rights, holding that changes in decor and entertainment do not constitute a fundamental difference in the nature of the work.

The respondent was declared bound by the collective agreement.

The union referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, challenging the discharge of a boilermaker.

The grievor was discharged after leaving the construction site during his shift without obtaining permission or providing a reason to his foreman.

The employer argued that the grievor's conduct warranted discharge, especially given previous warnings about attendance.

The Board found that while the grievor's conduct warranted some discipline, discharge was too severe a penalty given his length of service and the foreman's failure to object when the grievor announced his departure.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 44(9) of the Act to substitute a five-day suspension for the discharge and ordered compensation for lost wages.

A dissenting Board member would have upheld the discharge.

The applicant union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the respondent restaurant employer.

During the union's organizing campaign, the employer's managers held one-on-one meetings with employees, questioning them about the union, and distributed gratuitous bonus cheques to compensate for lost tips due to ongoing renovations.

An employee subsequently circulated a petition opposing the union.

The Board found that the petition was not a voluntary expression of employee wishes, as the employer's actions created an environment where employees would reasonably perceive management opposition and surveillance.

The Board also held that the employer's interrogations and the timed payment of bonuses during individual meetings constituted undue influence and interference in violation of sections 64 and 66(c) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board certified the union and ordered the employer to post a notice of its violations.

The complainant, a taxi driver, filed complaints alleging that the respondent employer breached the statutory freeze provisions of section 79 of the Labour Relations Act by increasing taxi rentals after a union applied for certification.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the complainant lacked standing.

The Board held that the statutory freeze protects the rights of the trade union, not individual employees, and therefore only the trade union has standing to bring a complaint under section 79.

The complaints were dismissed.

The applicant union sought a declaration that Stucor Construction Ltd. was bound to the Operating Engineers Provincial Agreement as a result of a sale of a business from Stewart & Hinan Contractors Limited, or alternatively, that the entities were related employers.

The predecessor business was liquidated when one partner retired, and the remaining partner started a new, smaller general contracting business (Stucor) using some of the predecessor's assets, key management personnel, and its name.

The Board found that the transfer of management skills, expertise, and some physical assets constituted a sale of part of a business within the meaning of section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

Stucor was declared bound by the collective agreement.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer.

During the organizing campaign, the employer engaged in anti-union communications, laid off union supporters, and assisted in forming an employee association.

The Board found that the employer's actions violated sections 64, 66, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also determined that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained due to the employer's conduct.

Consequently, the Board granted certification under section 8 of the Act and ordered the employer to reinstate the laid-off employees with compensation.

The employer applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of the employment status of eleven individuals, arguing they should be excluded from the bargaining unit under section 1(3)(b) because they exercised managerial functions or were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

The Board reviewed the duties and responsibilities of each individual, including benefits clerks, human resources assistants, payroll clerks, and occupational health nurses.

The Board concluded that only the Benefits Clerk was employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations and should be excluded.

The remaining ten individuals were found to be employees under the Act and properly included in the bargaining unit.

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

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description, excluding the assistant manager due to managerial authority.

The applicant filed valid membership evidence for more than fifty-five percent of the employees.

However, a group of objecting employees filed a timely petition in opposition to the union, which included signatures of employees who had previously signed membership cards.

The Board determined it was necessary to hear evidence on the voluntariness of the petition to decide whether to exercise its discretion to order a representation vote.

The applicant union sought certification to represent a bargaining unit of home day care providers working for the respondent.

The respondent argued the providers were independent contractors, while the union argued they were dependent contractors.

The Board found that the providers were in a position of economic dependency on the respondent, as they relied mainly on the respondent for work.

Furthermore, the providers were under an obligation to perform duties analogous to an employee, given the extensive regulation of their activities and the respondent's role in enforcing those regulations.

The Board concluded the providers were dependent contractors and directed the counting of the ballots.

A dissenting member found the providers were not dependent contractors.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer.

The Board previously found the two corporate respondents to be related employers.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit, deciding on a single unit for both companies and applying its usual geographic scope for the lumber industry.

The Board found that the employer violated sections 64 and 70 of the Labour Relations Act through a letter and statements made by the president, but concluded these breaches were not so flagrant as to prevent the true wishes of the employees from being ascertained in a representation vote.

The Board ordered remedial measures, including a notice to employees and union access, and directed a representation vote.