J. A. Ronson

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's retail store.

The union filed sufficient documentary evidence of membership to be certified without a representation vote.

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

The Board found that the petition was originated and circulated by the head cashier, who exercised supervisory functions and was perceived by employees as having a special relationship with management.

Consequently, the Board concluded the petition did not represent a voluntary change of heart and declined to order a representation vote.

The union was certified.

One Board member dissented.

The complainant union and two registered nurses alleged that the respondent nursing home laid off the nurses due to anti-union animus, contrary to sections 64 and 66 of the Labour Relations Act, and that the layoffs violated the statutory freeze under section 13 of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The Board found that the layoffs were necessitated by a Ministry directive to transfer extended care residents, reducing the required nursing hours.

The decision on whom to lay off was made by the respondent's solicitor based on seniority, without knowledge of union membership.

The Board concluded there was no anti-union animus and that the employer was permitted to implement layoffs during the freeze period to respond to legitimate business needs, as there was no established pattern for layoffs.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant filed a complaint alleging that the respondent employer harassed him and the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation regarding events that occurred between 1974 and 1978.

The complaint was filed in 1982, with a notice of intention to rely on the earlier events served less than 24 hours before the hearing in 1983.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to inquire into the complaint, exercising its discretion under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act, due to the extreme delay of over five years, the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and the resulting prejudice to the respondents, including the destruction of records and the death of a key witness.

The applicant requested the Board to reconsider its interim decision declining to defer the determination of the identity of the proper employer until the same issue was resolved in a separate certification application involving the same respondent.

The Board dismissed the request, noting that the evidence on the preliminary issue was already complete in the instant case, and the determination could not be properly influenced by findings of fact made by another panel in a different proceeding.

The union applied for certification.

The employer alleged that the union used threats and undue influence to obtain membership evidence from two employees.

The Board found the union's witnesses credible and dismissed the employer's charges, concluding no wrongdoing occurred.

The Board also denied the employer's request for an adjournment, which was sought because the employer's adviser was on a golf holiday, emphasizing the need for expedition in certification proceedings.

A certificate was issued to the union.

One Board Member dissented, finding the allegations of threats credible and would have ordered a vote.

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

The union argued that the petition circulated by the applicants was invalid because it lacked a heading indicating its purpose at the time it was signed.

The Board found that because the applicants showed each signatory a blank Form 17 (Application for Declaration Terminating Bargaining Rights) before they signed, the employees knew the purpose of the petition.

The Board accepted the petition as voluntary signification in writing and ordered a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, arguing the petition did not meet the strict requirements of Rule 73.

The applicant employee applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights at the first open period following a difficult strike and first collective agreement.

The union argued the employee petition was not voluntary due to the applicant's perceived proximity to management, the open gathering of signatures at the plant gates, and prior management statements.

The majority of the Board found the petition was a voluntary expression of employee wishes, noting the applicant was not in a supervisory role and the context of the recent strike diminished concerns about secrecy.

A representation vote was ordered.

One Board member dissented, finding the petition was tainted by management involvement and the overall environment.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement by failing to employ its members on a construction project within its geographic jurisdiction.

The employer argued the union was estopped from enforcing the agreement because it had acquiesced for years to the employer's practice of using members from a different local on projects in that area.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that all elements of promissory estoppel were present, as the union's long-standing inaction constituted a representation that the strict rights would not be enforced, upon which the employer relied to its detriment in bidding for the project.

The grievance was denied.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The Board previously found that the union lacked majority support without a disputed membership card and considered ordering a representation vote.

The union requested certification under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act, arguing that the employer's unlawful discharge of a union supporter and involvement in employee statements of desire made a free representation vote unlikely.

The Board found that the employer's unlawful discharge of an employee for union activity would prevent the true wishes of employees from being freely ascertained in a vote.

The Board granted certification under section 8.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision granting him a religious exemption from paying union dues, seeking to have the exemption apply retroactively to the date of his application.

The Board found that section 47(1) of the Labour Relations Act does not limit the scope of its orders regarding commencement dates.

Since the union and employer had notice of the application and potential liability from the outset, the Board amended its order to apply from the application date and directed the union to remit the dues collected during that period to the agreed-upon charity.

The union referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the employer violated the provincial agreement.

The parties agreed to first determine whether the employer was actually bound by the agreement.

The Board found that although the employer had signed various documents, including a 'letter of assent' and a 'signing page', these were signed on the understanding they would not be enforced and did not constitute formal voluntary recognition.

The Board concluded the employer was not legally bound by the provincial agreement and terminated the proceedings.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a group of truck drivers.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union.

The main issue was whether eight owner-operator drivers were dependent contractors or independent contractors.

The Board found they were economically dependent on the respondent and under an obligation to perform duties, making them dependent contractors.

The Board ordered representation votes to determine if a single employee driver should be included in the same bargaining unit as the dependent contractors.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer bargained in bad faith by failing to disclose its plans to change the role of a home for the aged and construct a new facility.

However, the union learned of these plans months before it signed a memorandum of settlement and a collective agreement.

The employer requested that the bad faith bargaining complaint be struck out.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to hear the complaint, finding that because the union had ample notice of the true state of affairs before concluding the collective agreement, it was not deprived of the opportunity to respond in bargaining.

As the complaint did not disclose a breach of the Act on its face, it was dismissed.

In an application for certification, the respondent requested that a Labour Relations Officer's Report be amended to include evidence from a witness whose classification was no longer in dispute.

The Board denied the request, outlining its practice that such evidence is excluded unless parties agree otherwise, but permitted the respondent to call the witness at the continuation of the hearing.

The Board also deferred ruling on whether it could compel the production of extra-provincial employees, directing that the threshold issue of territorial jurisdiction be argued first.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The intervener employees' association and the respondent employer argued the application was untimely due to a pre-existing collective agreement between them.

The Board found that the employer had provided substantial support to a predecessor workers' committee, which tainted the intervener association.

Consequently, under section 48 of the Labour Relations Act, the agreement was deemed not to be a valid collective agreement, and under section 13, the Board was precluded from certifying the intervener.

The intervener's application for certification was dismissed, and the applicant's certification application was referred for continuation of hearing.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by prohibiting on-the-job political canvassing by union members on company property during non-working hours.

The canvassing was in support of the Canadian Labour Congress and the New Democratic Party during a federal by-election.

The Board dismissed the complaint, holding that while the activity may be lawful, it is too remotely connected to the dominant purpose of the Act—collective bargaining—to be protected as a statutory right.

The Board found that the communications were aimed at employees as voters rather than as employees, and thus the employer's prohibition did not violate the Act.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer breached the Labour Relations Act by refusing to execute a collective agreement based on its last offer.

The employer had insisted on a clause requiring employee ratification of the agreement.

After the employees rejected the offer but also voted against a strike, the union accepted the employer's offer.

The employer refused to sign, citing the lack of employee ratification.

The Board held that the employer's insistence on employee ratification and refusal to execute the agreement constituted an unlawful attempt to bypass the union and deal directly with employees, breaching sections 15 and 64 of the Act.

The Board directed the employer to execute the collective agreement.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The union submitted membership evidence for three of five employees.

One employee signed a membership card after a union representative mistakenly told him he was working for a unionized firm and was required to join.

The employee later signed a resignation and a statement of desire opposing the union, with significant involvement from the employer's president.

The Board found the resignation and statement of desire were not voluntary due to management involvement.

However, because the employee signed the membership card under a misapprehension about his employer's union status, the Board doubted the reliability of the membership evidence and indicated a representation vote would normally be ordered.

The union requested certification under section 8, so the matter was relisted for hearing.

The applicants applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights for a full-time employee unit.

The union argued the appropriate unit included part-time employees and students, relying on a single document containing terms for both groups.

The Board found the document constituted two separate collective agreements and the full-time unit was appropriate.

The Board also denied the applicants' request to call all petition signatories to testify, citing the need to protect the secrecy of union membership under section 111(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The complainant union filed a complaint alleging that the respondent employer violated the Labour Relations Act by repudiating a collective agreement.

The employer argued that its secretary, who signed the agreement, lacked the authority to do so.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the secretary had both real and ostensible authority to bind the company, given his position, past signing of agreements, and the employer's representations during bargaining.

The Board declared the collective agreement valid and binding, directing the employer to apply its terms retroactively.