J. A. Ronson

The applicant union sought certification to represent employees of the related respondent employers.

During the organizing drive, management held meetings with employees where they strongly expressed anti-union sentiments, suggested forming an employee committee instead, and reminded employees of the terminal date to file opposition.

Following these meetings, an employee circulated a petition (statement of desire) opposing the union.

The Board found that management's statements exceeded the bounds of permissible free speech and constituted undue influence, thereby tainting the voluntariness of the subsequent petition.

As the union demonstrated sufficient membership support, the Board granted interim certification pending the resolution of the status of three specific employees.

The complainants, skilled tradesmen, alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act and engaged in intimidation under section 70 by refusing to process their grievances regarding the application of departmental versus mill seniority during layoffs.

The Board dismissed the section 70 complaint, finding no intimidation.

However, the Board found that the union president acted arbitrarily and in bad faith by refusing to process the grievances due to personal animosity and by withholding relevant information from the membership.

The Board held that the union breached section 68 and directed the parties to provide further submissions on the appropriate remedy, noting that referring the matter to arbitration might not be appropriate given the union's conflict of interest.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent company bargained in bad faith by refusing to sign a collective agreement based on a May 2 offer that the union purported to accept on October 25, after a lengthy strike.

The union also alleged that the company's discharge and suspension of several employees on October 25 was an unlawful attempt to avoid a collective agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the May 2 offer had been extinguished by the passage of time and the intervening strike.

The Board also found that the disciplinary actions were a lawful attempt to make the discharges inarbitrable under the anticipated collective agreement, rather than an unlawful attempt to avoid an agreement.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees.

The parties disputed whether part-time employees (working not more than 24 hours per week) should be excluded from the unit.

The employer argued for exclusion based on a single instance where a full-time employee temporarily worked part-time after returning from maternity leave.

The Board held that this isolated instance did not constitute a history of part-time employment.

Consequently, the Board included part-time employees in the full-time bargaining unit and issued a formal certificate.

The applicant union sought certification for a full-time bargaining unit.

The respondent employer argued that because several employees had received lay-off notices, their cards should be excluded from the membership count, and if support fell below 55%, a representation vote should be ordered.

The Board rejected this 'build-down' argument, finding that the lay-offs affected less than 20% of the workforce, which did not render the remaining complement unrepresentative.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to order a vote and certified the union.

The applicant union applied for certification and sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The union requested a bargaining unit description covering two municipalities, departing from the Board's general policy of municipal-wide units.

The Board found the union's asserted facts raised a serious issue regarding regular and significant interchange and community of interest.

The Board appointed a Board Officer to inquire into the community of interest among employees at various locations and the history of part-time employees.

During a hearing for unfair labour practice complaints alleging the union failed to bargain in good faith, the complainants served a subpoena duces tecum on a union representative seeking documents related to the union's collective bargaining strategies.

The union objected to the scope of the subpoena, arguing it was a fishing expedition and would prejudice negotiations.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the original subpoena too broad and restricted its scope, ordering the representative to bring only specific documents relating to joint bargaining strategies and intentions to proceed to impasse on certain proposals to the next hearing.

The Carpenters' union applied for certification of employees of Construction P.H. Grager Inc. The Labourers' union requested reconsideration, arguing they already held bargaining rights through a prior company, Pierre A. Gratton Construction Inc., which was a related or successor employer.

The Board found that a sale of a business had occurred under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, as the new company acquired the experience and expertise of the prior company's principal.

Consequently, the Carpenters' application was deemed a displacement application, the previous certificate was rescinded, and a representation vote was ordered.

The Communications Workers of Canada applied for certification to represent employees of CTG Telecommunications Systems, an interconnect company that sells, installs, and maintains telephone systems.

The respondent challenged the Ontario Labour Relations Board's jurisdiction, arguing its operations were an integral part of the Bell Canada network and thus fell under federal jurisdiction.

The Board held that the respondent's operations were not vital, essential, or integral to the core federal undertaking of Bell Canada, and therefore fell within provincial jurisdiction.

The Board also determined the composition of the appropriate bargaining unit and ordered a representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing the certification, which included signatures of employees who had previously signed union membership cards.

The Board held a hearing to determine whether the petition represented a voluntary change of heart.

The sole witness for the objectors provided inconsistent and implausible testimony regarding the origination and circulation of the petition.

The Board concluded the petition was unreliable and declined to order a representation vote.

As the union demonstrated membership support in excess of fifty-five percent, interim certification was granted pending the resolution of the bargaining unit status of four individuals.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated the statutory freeze provision of the Labour Relations Act by failing to pay a minimum wage increase and a Christmas bonus to part-time employees following the union's certification.

The employer argued that the expiration of the previous collective agreement and the termination of the incumbent union's bargaining rights meant the payments were not caught by the freeze.

The Board held that the terms and conditions of employment, including the bonus and wage increase, were frozen as of the date of the certification application and continued throughout the freeze period.

The Board directed the employer to make the payments.

The applicant employer applied under section 59(2) of the Labour Relations Act to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union had given notice to bargain in February 1983 but failed to commence bargaining or demonstrate any continued interest in its bargaining rights.

The bargaining unit had no employees since the plant's boiler system was automated in March 1982.

The union did not reply to the application and failed to appear at the hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board exercised its discretion to terminate the union's bargaining rights without a representation vote.

During applications for certification of limousine drivers, a dispute arose regarding the composition of the bargaining unit and the employment status of the drivers (whether they were employees, dependent contractors, or independent contractors).

The applicant union requested to review and copy the employee lists provided by the respondents.

The respondents objected, arguing the lists should remain confidential.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the union is entitled to review and copy the employee lists to meaningfully participate in the hearing and address the complex issues regarding the bargaining unit's composition.

A dissenting board member argued the lists should only be examined in the presence of a Labour Relations Officer to prevent their use for organizing purposes.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer alleged irregularities in the union's membership evidence, pointing to a letter sent by the union to employees asking them to confirm their membership and payment of the $1.00 fee.

The employer argued this raised a suspicion about the evidence and requested a representation vote.

The Board held that the letter was consistent with the union taking extra precautions regarding the accuracy of its membership evidence and did not raise a suspicion.

The Board accepted the membership evidence and granted certification.

One Board member dissented, arguing a vote should have been ordered.

The applicant union alleged that a 'sale of a business' occurred when the respondent purchased a tavern that had been closed for several months after the previous owner defaulted.

The respondent argued that no business existed to be sold and highlighted renovations and a change in entertainment.

The Board found that a sale of a business had taken place, as the essential assets, including the liquor licence, were transferred and the premises continued to operate as a tavern.

The union's bargaining rights were declared to continue.

The applicant sought to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

Following a representation vote, the union alleged employer impropriety, including threats of plant closure and holding a barbecue, and sought to set aside the vote.

The Board held that the union was precluded from raising allegations closely connected to the vote itself because it had signed a waiver, and failed to exercise due diligence in raising earlier allegations.

On the merits, the Board found the union's witness lacked credibility, dismissed the allegations of threats, and found the barbecue did not constitute improper interference.

The Board declined to set aside the representation vote.

The complainant, an employee at a meat processing plant, refused to hold a hog carcass while another employee operated a newly installed circular saw, citing safety concerns.

The complainant was subsequently given the choice to do the work or leave, which the Board found amounted to a discharge.

The Board held that the complainant had a reasonable belief that the work was unsafe and had adequately communicated this to his supervisor.

The Board concluded that the employer violated section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by discharging the complainant for exercising his right to refuse unsafe work, and ordered compensation.

The applicant union claimed that a former contractor transferred its business to the respondent when the respondent won a competitive tender for a food services contract at a correctional centre.

The union argued that the respondent was bound by the existing collective agreement as a successor employer.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the loss of a contract by tender to a competitor does not constitute a sale or transfer of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, relying on its previous decision in Metropolitan Parking Inc.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board considered applications arising from the franchising of former Dominion stores to Mr. Grocer franchisees.

The union sought a related employer declaration under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, arguing that Dominion, its subsidiary Willett Foods, and the franchisee Penmarkay Foods were under common control and direction.

Penmarkay sought to terminate the union's bargaining rights under s. 63(5), claiming a substantial change in the business.

The Board dismissed the s. 63(5) application, finding no fundamental change in the work performed.

The Board granted the s. 1(4) declaration, finding that Willett exercised real economic control over Penmarkay through the franchise agreement, which dictated margins, rent, and other costs, effectively controlling labour relations.

The declaration preserved the consolidated bargaining structure.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and a representation vote was held.

Three ballots were segregated due to disputes over whether the individuals exercised managerial functions.

After the non-segregated ballots were counted, revealing a majority in favour of the union, the applicant conceded that one of the disputed individuals exercised managerial functions.

The respondent employer argued the applicant could not change its position after the vote results were known.

The Board held that a party may agree with the opposing party's position at any stage.

As the remaining two disputed ballots could no longer affect the applicant's right to certification, the Board certified the applicant on an interim basis and appointed an officer to inquire into the remaining disputed individuals and the part-time employee issue.