J. A. Ronson

Following a finding that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to process the complainants' grievances regarding layoff selection, the Board convened a hearing to determine the appropriate remedy.

The Board decided to interpret the collective agreement itself rather than referring the matter to arbitration, finding that the union's internal conflict made arbitration inappropriate.

The Board concluded that the collective agreement required layoffs to be based on departmental seniority rather than mill seniority.

The Board awarded compensation to the complainants for lost wages during specific layoff periods, plus interest, but denied their request for costs.

The applicant trade union sought certification for pipefitters and welders working on a top wire former project at the respondent's paper mill.

The respondent argued it was not an employer in the construction industry and that the work was maintenance, not construction.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the installation and alteration of piping systems to improve the mill's warm and white water capacity constituted construction and alteration of buildings under section 1(1)(f) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board further held that by performing this construction work, the respondent operated a business engaged in the construction industry within the meaning of section 117(c), regardless of whether its primary business was papermaking.

The matter was directed to be listed for hearing on remaining issues.

The complainant and several other employees were dismissed from their employment for refusing to become members of the union, as required by a union shop clause in the collective agreement.

The complainant alleged that the union and employer violated the Labour Relations Act by enforcing the clause and failing to provide sufficient particulars of the membership requirements.

The complainant also argued that compulsory union membership violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employees had reasonable notice and opportunity to join the union but simply refused to do so.

The Board also held that the Charter does not apply to private sector collective agreements.

During a hearing for an unfair labour practice complaint, the union requested to be added as a party but was denied due to its late intervention without justification.

Subsequently, the complainant objected to the introduction of his employment application as an exhibit and refused to deliver the document to the Board, claiming the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board ruled that it has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the admissibility of evidence and ordered the complainant to deliver the document by a specified date, failing which the complaint would be dismissed.

The applicant union requested the Board to reconsider its decision dismissing an application for certification following a representation vote.

The union alleged employer misconduct based on a letter distributed prior to the vote, but failed to file its objection within the prescribed time limits despite having knowledge of the letter before the deadline.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, emphasizing the need for expedition and certainty in its procedures, and finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the untimely objection.

The union applied for a declaration that several corporate respondents constituted a single employer under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively, that a sale of a business occurred under s. 63 following a corporate reorganization.

The Board found that the companies were not under common control or direction and did not engage in related activities, dismissing the s. 1(4) application.

However, the Board found that a sale of a business had occurred with respect to the plant employees of Marson Canada Inc., Swingline/Rexel Inc., and Wilson Jones, Division of Acme Seeley Inc. The Board found no sale of a business regarding the office employees of Swingline/Rexel Inc. and Wilson Jones, as they were newly hired or performing different functions, but did find a sale regarding Marson Canada Inc.'s office employees.

The applicants sought a declaration that A & P was a successor employer to New Dominion Stores Inc. following a corporate reorganization, and that an intermingling of employees had occurred, justifying the termination of Local 206's bargaining rights or a representation vote.

The Board found that a sale of a business had occurred and A & P was bound by the collective agreement with Local 206.

However, the Board found no intermingling of employees and declined to order a representation vote.

To resolve the conflict between the provincial agreement and Local 206's agreement, the Board amended both agreements to confine Local 206's rights to the specific Chatham store.

In an unfair labour practice complaint alleging termination for union activities, the respondent sought to introduce polygraph evidence to prove his lack of anti-union animus.

The complainant union objected, citing the Employment Standards Act's prohibition on lie detector tests in employment.

The Board ruled the polygraph evidence inadmissible, finding that its introduction would put employees at a tactical disadvantage and undermine the legislative intent protecting employees from such tests.

A dissenting member would have allowed the evidence to be considered for its relevance.

The applicant union applied for certification of the respondent's employees.

The intervener union requested reconsideration, arguing it already held bargaining rights due to a related employer finding and that the employees were hired contrary to its collective agreement, meaning they should not be counted as employees under the April Waterproofing principle.

The Board found that although the employees were hired outside the intervener's collective agreement, the employer acted in good faith, unaware of the related employer obligations, and the applicant union innocently organized the employees.

The Board distinguished April Waterproofing and directed a representation vote between the applicant and intervener.

The applicant trade union applied for certification under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act.

The parties agreed that the employer contravened the Act such that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained.

The Board found that the union had adequate membership support for collective bargaining and granted interim certification for the agreed-upon bargaining unit, pending resolution of challenges to the employee list.

The applicant union sought to include a warranty clerk and a cashier in the bargaining unit of service and parts department employees.

The respondent employer argued they were office staff and should be excluded.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board examined the duties, supervision, and working conditions of the two employees.

Applying the community of interest criteria, the Board found that their work was primarily clerical and their functional coherence and interdependence lay with the general accounting office rather than the production employees.

Consequently, the Board excluded both employees from the bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent the respondent's part-time employees.

The respondent employer alleged that the union's membership evidence was tainted because rank-and-file employees assisting in the organizing campaign misrepresented the union's two-tiered initiation fee structure, telling employees it would cost $1 to join now but $20 later.

The Board found that the union's fee structure itself was acceptable and that the misstatements were made by rank-and-file employees, not full-time union organizers.

The Board concluded that the misrepresentations did not warrant discounting the membership cards or ordering a representation vote.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

One Board member dissented, arguing a vote should be ordered due to the misrepresentations.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's wholesale division.

The parties disagreed on whether salesmen, fillers, part-time employees, and students should be included in the unit.

The Board found that the salesmen and fillers shared a community of interest with the warehouse and delivery employees, departing from its usual policy due to the specific operational integration.

The Board excluded students based on the employer's history of hiring them, but included part-time employees as there was no such history.

As the union demonstrated less than forty-five percent membership support in the determined unit, the application for certification was dismissed.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by issuing written warnings to thirty workers who refused to work on a conveyor line they believed was unsafe.

The workers initially refused to work after the line 'jumped'.

They continued their refusal the following day, even after repairs were made and a Ministry of Labour inspector had investigated and concluded the line was not likely to endanger them.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that, following the employer's explanations and the inspector's report, the workers did not have reasonable grounds to continue their work refusal.

The Board held that the refusal was not protected by the Act and that the employer's mild disciplinary response was justified.

The complaint was dismissed, with one Board member dissenting.

The applicants sought a declaration under the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act that a transfer of an undertaking had occurred from the Crown to the municipality.

The Crown had conveyed the administration of a part of its Family Benefits Act program to the municipality, and six former Crown employees accepted employment there.

The respondent union argued no transfer occurred because the Crown lacked statutory authority to have the work performed by non-Crown employees.

The Board held that the legal authority of the Crown to effect a transfer is not determinative of whether a transfer occurred under the Act.

Finding that a transfer and intermingling of employees had occurred, the Board declared that the municipality was no longer bound by the respondent union's collective agreement and that the applicant union was the bargaining agent for all employees in the unit.

During a hearing into an application for certification, the Board investigated allegations that the applicant union submitted membership evidence indicating employees had paid one dollar when they had not.

The Board found that one employee had not paid the dollar, rendering his card invalid.

However, the Board accepted the evidence of union officials over a conflicting witness regarding another card, concluding that the remaining membership documents were reliable despite procedural irregularities.

The matter was relisted for continuation.

The applicant union, Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation (OSSTF), applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of clerical and secretarial support staff employed by the respondent board of education.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that OSSTF's constitution did not permit it to accept such employees into membership.

The Board reviewed the union's constitution and by-laws, which were framed exclusively around the teaching profession and professional educators.

The Board concluded that the phrase 'employed in an educational capacity' in the constitution could not be stretched to include clerical support staff.

As the union had no established practice of admitting non-teachers into membership, the Board found the employees were not eligible for membership in OSSTF.

The applicant union sought certification for employees at the respondent's service centre.

The parties disputed whether Parts Clerical, Delivery Clerical, Receiving Clerical, and Service Clerical employees should be included in the bargaining unit.

The Board found that these employees performed functions similar to the Merchandise Control Office and Customer Convenience Centre, and lacked a community of interest with the production employees.

The Board excluded them from the bargaining unit as office and clerical staff and issued a final certificate.

The complainants, employees of The T. Eaton Company Limited, alleged that the respondent union violated the Labour Relations Act by failing to hold a ratification vote before accepting a collective agreement.

The union, facing a prolonged strike and the potential loss of bargaining rights, had its International President ratify the agreement after conducting a back-to-work vote among striking employees only.

The Board found that the union did not act in bad faith or violate its duty of fair representation, as it was not legally obligated to hold a ratification vote and acted to protect its bargaining rights.

The complaints were dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent the respondent's construction employees.

The interveners argued that the application should be barred under section 13 of the Labour Relations Act because the employer had selected the applicant as the bargaining agent and deducted union dues prior to certification, constituting improper employer support.

The Board held that in the construction industry, an employer's selection of a trade union as a source of workers does not violate the employer support provisions.

The Board found no improper support and granted the certification.