J. A. Ronson

The applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of a business occurred between Doran Construction Limited and the Taggart group, and that the Taggart companies were related employers.

Doran, facing financial difficulties, wound down its operations and sold its equipment to Taggart.

Doran's principals also agreed to provide part-time assistance to Taggart to help them enter the general contracting business.

The Board found that Taggart acquired the built-up experience, familiarity, and economic organization of Doran, constituting a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

Taggart General Contractors Limited was declared bound by the applicant's collective agreement.

The related employer application regarding Taggart Construction Limited was dismissed as the companies operated separately.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether certain supervisors exercised managerial functions.

The respondent employer argued the application was untimely and should not proceed because the parties were engaged in a lawful strike and the supervisors were performing production work.

The Board held that the parties were 'in the course of bargaining' and the application was timely.

The Board noted that evidence of duties performed during the strike was irrelevant, but directed an officer to inquire into the supervisors' regular duties and responsibilities.

The complainants requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision, arguing that the Board's refusal to sever an existing bargaining unit violated their freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the request, holding that freedom of association does not guarantee the unfettered right to enter a bargaining unit of one's choosing.

The Board noted that majoritarian principles and the establishment of viable bargaining structures do not infringe upon constitutional rights.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his authority to appoint a single arbitrator under section 45 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union had previously initiated the arbitration process under the collective agreement, but the employer argued this referral was premature and subsequently requested a section 45 expedited arbitration.

The Board held that the union's premature referral did not foreclose the employer's timely section 45 request, confirming the Minister's jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator.

The applicant union sought certification but erroneously included managerial supervisors in its proposed bargaining unit description.

Relying on this inclusion, two supervisors organized a petition opposing the union.

At the hearing, the union amended its description to exclude the supervisors, rendering their petition invalid as a voluntary expression of employee wishes due to managerial taint.

Because the Board's original notice had explicitly invited the supervisors to respond based on the union's drafting error, the Board ordered the application to be re-posted in its amended form with a new terminal date to allow employees a fair opportunity to respond.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his authority to appoint a single arbitrator under section 45 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer had requested the appointment after the time limits stipulated in the collective agreement for referring a grievance to arbitration had expired.

The Board held that the time limits in section 45 must be strictly construed and found the employer's referral to be untimely.

Consequently, the Board advised the Minister that he had no authority to appoint an arbitrator.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated the Labour Relations Act by contracting out its sheeting operation without disclosing its intention to do so during collective bargaining.

The Board found that the employer had not made a firm decision to contract out during negotiations, but rather was exploring options to minimize losses from waste material.

The Board concluded there was no duty to disclose unsolicited information about contracting out under these circumstances.

Furthermore, the decision to contract out was motivated by genuine business considerations, not anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued several decisions regarding applications for certification and unfair labour practice complaints.

In the first case, the Board found that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act when three managers obtained signatures on a petition opposing the trade union.

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

Other decisions addressed the appropriate bargaining unit for a specialized business centre in a department store, a duty of fair representation complaint involving municipal technical employees, a sale of a business application concerning a retail food store, and the exclusion of a chemical control supervisor from a bargaining unit based on community of interest.

The applicant trade union sought a declaration that the respondent was bound by its collective agreement with Dominion Stores Limited, alleging a sale of business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent had opened an Italian-style supermarket in the same shopping plaza premises previously occupied by Dominion, after Dominion surrendered its lease and the respondent entered into a new lease with the landlord.

The respondent also purchased some of Dominion's leftover fixtures.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the transactions were independent and the respondent's presence represented the expansion of its existing parallel business rather than the purchase of Dominion's business.

The Board previously found that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation towards the complainant technical and professional employees.

In this hearing to determine the appropriate remedy and to consider an application for certification by the complainants' newly formed association, the Board declined to fragment the existing bargaining unit.

The Board also declined to award damages, finding no causal link between the union's breach and the final wage settlement.

Instead, the Board ordered the restructuring of the union's bargaining committee to ensure proportional representation for the higher-rated employees and ordered the posting of a notice acknowledging the breach.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent five truck drivers employed by the respondent milk transport company.

The parties disputed the appropriate geographic description of the bargaining unit.

The respondent argued for the Board's standard municipality-based units, which would have fragmented the five employees into multiple units, some with only one employee.

The Board departed from its general practice, finding that the employees, though residing in different municipalities, all worked within the same general area and were part of a single integrated operation.

The Board defined the bargaining unit to encompass employees working in and out of the Regional Municipalities of York and Durham, and granted the certificate.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of employees at Moose Factory Hospital.

The respondent employer argued that nine employees were guards under section 12 of the Labour Relations Act and that one employee exercised managerial functions under section 1(3)(b).

The Board found that the nine employees were not guards, as their duties primarily involved protecting property from visitors and intruders rather than monitoring other employees.

The Board also found that the supervisor of security services did not exercise effective control or authority over employees and was therefore not a manager.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the statutory freeze under section 79(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer sent an employee home for refusing to paint her new replacement vehicle black.

During an ongoing certification proceeding, the parties had previously stipulated as a fact that the employer's policy of requiring black cars was no longer in effect and was merely encouraged.

The majority of the Board held that this stipulated fact constituted an agreed term or condition of employment that could not be altered without the union's consent during the statutory freeze period.

The Board directed that the employee be reinstated with full compensation.

The Vice-Chairman dissented, finding that the stipulation was merely a description of facts and did not create a new term or condition of employment.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a unit of maintenance electricians employed by the respondent mining company.

The union argued that the electricians constituted a craft unit deemed appropriate under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board reviewed extensive evidence of the union's bargaining practices across various industries in Canada and the United States.

The Board found that outside the construction and related industries, the union did not commonly bargain separately and apart for maintenance electricians.

Consequently, the union failed to meet the mandatory criteria of section 6(3) and was not entitled to a separate craft bargaining unit.

The applicant filed an application for certification.

The Board required the applicant to prove its status as a trade union under the Labour Relations Act.

Evidence showed the applicant's constitution was adopted after the application was filed, and membership evidence predated the constitution without reaffirmation.

The Board found the applicant was not a trade union at the time of filing and dismissed the application.

The intervening employees requested an adjournment of the hearing because they received only seven days' notice and their counsel needed more time to prepare.

The Board granted the adjournment.

The complainant then requested that the intervening employees pay its costs for the day.

The Board denied the request, noting that it was not satisfied with the amount of notice given to the intervening employees and that it would be inappropriate to exact costs as a condition of the adjournment.

During a grievance arbitration hearing, the applicant union requested a bench warrant for a witness who failed to attend after being served with a subpoena duces tecum.

The Board declined to issue the warrant, finding that serving the witness on the afternoon prior to the hearing did not constitute reasonable notice, and therefore the witness was not duly served.

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

Although the employees initiated the petition independently, the employer subsequently provided financial assistance to the employees to attend the Board hearing in Toronto.

The Board found that this financial assistance constituted employer interference under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act, as it aligned the employer with the employees seeking termination.

Consequently, the Board could not rely on the petition as a voluntary expression of the employees' wishes and dismissed the application.

The intervener challenged the applicant union's membership evidence in a certification application, alleging that two employees did not pay the required one dollar initiation fee.

The Board found that one employee did not pay the fee, invalidating his card, but concluded the collector's error was innocent rather than deliberate.

The Board accepted the remaining membership evidence, finding the applicant met the 35% threshold required for a pre-hearing representation vote, and directed that the sealed ballots be counted.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement by failing to employ union members for scaling work and by subcontracting the work to non-union employees.

The work was actually performed by laid-off employees of the project owner (LOC) at the owner's insistence, to satisfy its own union.

Applying the seven-fold criteria for determining an employer-employee relationship, the Board found that LOC, not the respondent, exercised direction and control and was the true employer of the individuals performing the work.

As the respondent did not employ the workers or subcontract the work, the grievance was dismissed.