J. A. Ronson

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices by laying off 131 employees and transferring production to another plant as a reprisal for a protracted strike.

The union also alleged that the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith by failing to disclose its relocation plans during collective bargaining.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer's decision to open a new plant was part of a legitimate corporate strategy to rationalize production and was not motivated by anti-union animus.

The Board further held that the employer was not required to disclose its plans during bargaining because it reasonably believed, in good faith, that the new plant would not adversely affect the job security of the existing bargaining unit.

The layoffs were found to be the result of an unanticipated economic downturn rather than a reprisal.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent hospital committed an unfair labour practice by filing a professional misconduct complaint against the local union president with the College of Nurses.

The union president had made inaccurate public statements at a press conference linking a patient's death to understaffing in the intensive care unit.

The Board found that the union president's statements, though inaccurate, were made without malice and constituted protected trade union activity under the Labour Relations Act.

However, the Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the hospital lacked anti-union animus and held a genuine belief that the statements constituted professional misconduct when it reported her to the College.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The respondent employer alleged that the union organizer misrepresented the initiation fee structure by telling employees they would have to pay a higher fee if they did not join immediately, thereby coercing them into signing membership cards.

The Board found that while there may have been some confusion, the organizer did not intend to mislead employees and the statements did not amount to coercion or fundamental misrepresentation.

The Board also found that counter-petitions signed by employees reaffirming their support for the union were voluntary.

As the union had the support of more than 55 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit, a certificate was issued without a representation vote.

The complainants filed a complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding a work assignment dispute at Ontario Hydro's Bruce Generating Station.

The respondents argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicable collective agreements required jurisdictional disputes to be referred to the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board (IJDB).

The complainants contended that the IJDB was no longer operational.

The Board found that while the IJDB was not currently issuing job decisions, its procedures were still operative and the parties were bound by them.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction under section 91(14) of the Act and terminated the proceedings.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices by laying off all employees and subsequently failing to recall five specific employees, including the primary union organizer, shortly after receiving notice of an application for certification.

The employer argued the lay-off was necessitated by severe financial difficulties, lack of orders, and a demand for advance payment from a supplier.

The Board found that the employer met the reverse onus under section 89(5) of the Labour Relations Act, establishing on a balance of probabilities that the lay-off and the decisions not to recall the specific employees were motivated by legitimate business considerations and employee performance, not anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a unit of owner-operators of tractor-trailers hauling materials from the respondent's quarry.

The Board found that the six owner-operators in question were dependent contractors and therefore employees under the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent argued that due to the seasonal nature of the work, the six individuals did not constitute a substantial and representative number of the workforce, and requested a representation vote be deferred.

The Board rejected this argument, finding that the six persons constituted a substantial and representative number of employees, and granted the certificate to the applicant.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer closed its egg grading business and sold it to a newly formed company to evade its collective bargaining obligations.

The union sought a declaration that a sale of business occurred and that its bargaining rights bound the new company, as well as remedies for unfair labour practices.

The Board found that a sale of business had occurred, but that the union's bargaining rights did not extend to the new company's location.

The Board also found that the plant closure was economically motivated and not an unfair labour practice.

However, the Board concluded that the new company unlawfully refused to hire several former employees because of their suspected union activity, and that the predecessor employer unlawfully discharged a key union organizer.

The Board ordered reinstatement and compensation for the affected employees.

The applicant employee filed an application for termination of the respondent union's bargaining rights, supported by a petition signed by approximately 70% of the employees in the bargaining unit.

The union argued that the petition was not voluntary because the applicant and another employee who circulated it were group leaders who exercised managerial functions or could be perceived as managerial.

The Board found that the group leaders were members of the bargaining unit and their role in circulating the petition was peripheral.

The Board concluded that the petition was a voluntary expression of employee wishes and directed that a representation vote be taken.

In a referral of a construction industry grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, the applicant union alleged that the respondent employer failed to properly pay living allowances under the collective agreement.

During the hearing, the respondent sought to introduce extrinsic evidence, arguing that the phrase 'job site location' in the agreement contained patent and latent ambiguities.

The Board ruled that extrinsic evidence would be allowed and issued this interim decision to explain the nature of the ambiguities, noting that the word 'location' is capable of multiple meanings that must be resolved using all available evidence.

The union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for the appointment of a Board officer to inquire into the employee status of three foremen.

During prior collective bargaining, the union had agreed to a recognition clause excluding foremen, despite initially reserving its right to challenge their status.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, applying its policy that where parties have settled the employment status of a person by agreement, neither party can unilaterally repudiate that agreement by bringing a section 106(2) application absent a material change in duties.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that three respondent companies constituted a single employer, or alternatively, that a sale of a business occurred under section 63.

The Board found no sale of business from CM to Pioneer and declined to treat them as a single employer, noting the union had historically treated CM and Subito as separate entities.

However, the Board found that Subito and Pioneer, despite operating at different times, were associated businesses under common direction and control.

The Board exercised its discretion to declare Subito and Pioneer a single employer, binding them to the provincial agreement in the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector.

The applicants referred a grievance to the Board under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent violated a collective agreement.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing it was not bound by any collective agreement with the applicants.

The Board found that the respondent had signed a short-form agreement in 1973 that bound it to the provincial agreement.

While the respondent had not assigned its bargaining rights to the employer bargaining agency for all sectors, it was bound by the provincial agreement in respect of the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector by operation of the Act.

The Board ordered the respondent to cease violating the agreement in that sector.

The applicant union brought an application under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act alleging that a sale of a business had taken place when the respondents acquired the leasehold interest and liquor licence of The Horseshoe Tavern.

The respondents argued that they had merely acquired assets and changed the character of the business from a 'punk rock' venue to a 'country and western' lounge.

The Board found that the transaction constituted a continuation of the predecessor's business, noting that the tavern operated at the same location, under the same name, and that the 'punk rock' format was merely a brief interlude in the tavern's long history as a country and western centre.

The Board declared that a sale of a business had occurred and that the union's bargaining rights continued to bind the respondents.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a group of employees, including captain-waiters and an assistant maitre d'hotel.

The respondent employer argued these individuals exercised managerial functions and that the union was estopped from representing them due to a prior agreement excluding them from a previous certification.

The Board found that the individuals did not exercise managerial functions under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also held that the union was not estopped from applying to represent them, as the prior agreement did not result in an unfair advantage for the union or prejudice to the employer.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit and found the union had sufficient membership support.

The complainants, employees and union members, alleged that the union violated sections 60 and 63(5) of the Labour Relations Act by providing insufficient notice for a contract ratification vote and conducting the meeting improperly.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union's conduct, while involving a misunderstanding regarding the strike deadline, did not amount to arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith representation.

The Board concluded that the employees were given a reasonable opportunity to participate in the secret ballot vote and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit comprising cleaning and maintenance staff employed by the respondent.

The sole issue was whether resident superintendents should be excluded from the unit on the basis that they were part-time employees or had a separate community of interest.

The Board found that the resident superintendents regularly worked more than 24 hours per week and shared a community of interest with the full-time maintenance crews.

The Board concluded that a single comprehensive bargaining unit was appropriate and issued a certificate.

The applicant union sought certification to represent burlesque entertainers working at various taverns.

The central issue was whether the dancers were employees, dependent contractors, or independent contractors.

The Board applied common law tests, including the control test, the fourfold test, and the organization test, and reviewed extensive jurisprudence from other jurisdictions regarding entertainers.

The Board concluded that the transient dancers were self-employed independent contractors, as they controlled their own acts, were not integrated into the taverns' organizations, and were not economically dependent on any single tavern.

However, two 'house dancers' at the Colonial Tavern were found to be employees due to their stable relationship and economic dependence.

The applications respecting the other taverns were dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees working aboard the respondent's tugs in the Port of Hamilton.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing its operations fell under federal jurisdiction pursuant to the British North America Act's provisions on navigation and shipping.

The Board examined the respondent's operations, which included pushing a fuel barge, docking ships, and towing vessels extra-provincially.

The Board concluded that the respondent's tug boat operations were an integral part of or necessarily incidental to federal navigation and shipping undertakings.

Consequently, the Board found that the respondent's labour relations were governed by the Canada Labour Code rather than provincial legislation, and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant union applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union under section 52 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the applicant lacked status because it did not represent the employees in the bargaining unit.

The applicant relied on two recognition documents, arguing there was a latent ambiguity that would allow extrinsic evidence to show the agreements covered the work in question (refurbishing concrete columns on the Gardner Expressway).

The Board found no latent ambiguity, as the documents clearly restricted recognition to the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector, whereas the work in question fell outside that sector.

Consequently, the applicant did not represent the affected employees and lacked status to bring the application.

The application was dismissed.

The Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union and the International Ladies Garment Workers Union both conducted organizing campaigns at the respondent's plant.

The respondent laid off four key union supporters.

The Amalgamated applied for certification and both unions filed unfair labour practice complaints.

The Board found that the layoffs were unlawfully motivated by anti-union animus.

However, the Board declined to grant certification without a vote under section 7a, reasoning that both unions had been equally damaged and had competing claims to employee allegiance.

Instead, the Board ordered extensive remedial measures, including reinstatement with compensation, a posting and mailing of notices, union access to the plant, and a new representation vote.