J. A. Ronson

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the employer responded to its organizing campaign by relocating two union supporters, discharging the primary union organizer, and forcing another supporter to resign.

The employer claimed the relocations and terminations were for business reasons, including efficiency and absenteeism.

The Board found that the employer's actions were motivated by anti-union animus in violation of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the discharged employees with full compensation, along with a posting order, union access to the employer's premises and bulletin board, and a list of employee names and addresses.

The Board declined to award damages for loss of dignity or additional organizing expenses, and denied the union's request for consent to prosecute.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated the Labour Relations Act by discharging an employee for refusing to work on Saturdays.

The Board found no evidence of violations under sections 58 or 61.

However, the Board determined that the employee had a long-standing privilege of not working on Saturdays, which the employer altered without the union's consent during the statutory freeze period following certification.

The Board held that the employer violated section 70 of the Act and ordered the employee's reinstatement with full compensation.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated the statutory freeze period under section 70(1) of the Labour Relations Act by changing shift assignments and reducing the regular weekly hours of work for certain employees.

The employer argued the changes were valid business decisions made to accommodate a shift in program focus and funding constraints.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the layoffs and shift reassignments were a continuation of the employer's past practice of managing its operations and did not violate the Act.

However, the Board held that the implementation of a work-sharing arrangement, which reduced the hours of two employees instead of laying one off, was not an established practice and therefore violated the statutory freeze.

The Board ordered compensation for the affected employees and the posting of a notice.

The applicant union requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsider its decision finding Local 700 bound by a memorandum of settlement.

The union argued there was no evidence it authorized the settlement and that negotiations must take place through counsel.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no principle requires settlement negotiations to occur through counsel.

The Board also held that neither the Ironworkers District Council nor the other locals had standing to continue the grievance referral, as only Local 700 held representational rights for the employees and its rights regarding grievances were not vested in the Council.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and filed documentary evidence of membership for approximately 77% of the employees in the bargaining unit.

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

Subsequently, all six of these employees signed a revocation document reaffirming their support for the union.

The Board assessed the voluntariness of the petition and the revocation document.

Finding the revocation document to be a bona fide statement of the employees' wishes, the Board accepted it, leaving the union with more than 55% support.

The Board issued a certificate to the applicant without ordering a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, arguing that a representation vote should have been ordered due to inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the voluntariness of the revocations.

The applicant union applied for a declaration of successor rights under section 54 of the Labour Relations Act following a purported merger with the respondent association.

The intervener employer raised a preliminary objection that the applicant lacked status as a trade union in Ontario because it had no prior presence, officers, or permanent office in the province.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that the statutory definition of a trade union does not require a pre-existing presence in Ontario.

Finding that the applicant was a viable organization of employees with a written constitution and elected officers, the Board concluded it was a trade union within the meaning of the Act and directed the matter to proceed on the merits.

The applicant union applied under section 5 of The Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act, 1977, seeking a declaration that it is the sole bargaining agent for employees of the respondent municipality following the transfer of water and sewage treatment plants from the Province.

The intervener union argued that the transfer was not complete pending Ontario Municipal Board approval and sought to preserve a separate bargaining unit for the transferred employees.

The Board found that a transfer of functions had occurred and that the employees had been substantially intermingled.

Given the overwhelming majority of employees already represented by the applicant union and the labour relations difficulties of fragmenting the bargaining structure, the Board declared the applicant union the bargaining agent for the merged unit and terminated the intervener's bargaining rights without a representation vote.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed an unfair labour practice by closing its Windsor Branch Plant and servicing the area from Chatham, arguing the closure was designed to remove the union as bargaining agent.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's decision was motivated solely by bona fide business considerations, specifically the loss of a major customer account and the need to improve profitability, and was devoid of any anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of taxi owner-operators.

The central issue was whether the owner-operators were dependent contractors (and thus employees under the Labour Relations Act) or independent contractors.

The Board found that the owner-operators performed services for compensation, were economically dependent on the respondent's dispatch service, and were subject to a high degree of control by the respondent.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the owner-operators were dependent contractors and certified the applicant as their exclusive bargaining agent.

The Building Trades Council and several affiliated unions filed complaints and grievances against Ins-Co Sarnia Ltd. following the discharge of employees after an unlawful strike.

The parties engaged in settlement discussions, resulting in a memorandum of settlement signed by the Council's president.

Ironworkers Local 700, a member of the Council, subsequently argued it was not bound by the settlement and sought to continue its proceedings.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the Council had ostensible authority to settle the matters on behalf of Local 700.

As the employer relied on this authority without knowledge of any internal limitations, the settlement was binding on Local 700, and the proceedings were terminated.

The applicant, a secondary school teacher, filed a complaint alleging that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to proceed to arbitration with her grievance.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application on preliminary jurisdictional grounds.

The Board held that the Labour Relations Act does not apply to teachers, and the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act neither imposes a statutory duty of fair representation nor grants the Board jurisdiction to inquire into such complaints.

The applicant union and respondent employer disputed the eligibility of three individuals who cast segregated ballots in a representation vote.

The parties agreed at the hearing to count the first ballot.

The Board ordered the second ballot counted because the employee had been reinstated with full compensation in a related unfair labour practice proceeding, entitling him to participate in the vote.

The Board ruled the third ballot should not be counted because the employee had been transferred out of the bargaining unit for an indefinite period prior to the date the vote was taken, failing the Board's two-pronged voter eligibility rule.

The applicant union applied under section 95(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether certain persons were employees of the respondent.

The respondent and intervener objected to the jurisdiction of the Board Officer to conduct an inquiry, arguing that there was no 'question' as to employee status since they conceded the persons were employees within the meaning of the Act, just not employees of the respondent.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that it has jurisdiction under section 95(2) to determine not only if a person is an employee, but also whether they are an employee of the specific employer party to the collective agreement.

The Board revised the Board Officer's appointment to inquire into whether the individuals are employees of the respondent.

The Board assessed compensation owed to an employee previously found to have been unlawfully discharged.

The respondent employer argued the employee failed to mitigate his damages by not seeking work in his specific trade as a spring maker.

The Board found the employee acted reasonably in seeking alternative work and attempting to start a business initially, but failed to take reasonable steps to find work in his trade during a subsequent four-month period.

Compensation for lost wages was reduced by the amount the employee likely could have earned during that four-month period, resulting in an award of $11,389.44 plus benefits and interest.

The applicant trade union applied for a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Trans-Nation Incorporated and Valentine Enterprises Contracting constituted one employer.

While the Board assumed the two entities were under common control or direction, it found they were not carrying on associated or related activities.

Trans-Nation was engaged in acquiring and refurbishing commercial buildings, whereas Valentine performed sewer and watermain work.

The Board concluded the businesses did not serve the same market or employ the same mode of production.

The application was dismissed, with one Board Member dissenting.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed a petition in opposition, but the Board found it was not voluntary due to perceived management involvement.

However, the respondent employer alleged that union organizers used intimidation to obtain membership cards.

The Board found that a union organizer made an intimidating statement to an employee.

Given the organizer's role in collecting all the cards, the Board ordered a representation vote rather than granting outright certification.

Board Member Archer dissented, finding the intimidation allegation vague and would have certified the union.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the grievor was unjustly suspended and discharged by the respondent employer.

The grievor was discharged following two incidents of insubordination and violence towards a general foreman, including pushing the foreman to the floor and throwing a hard hat at him.

The grievor alleged the foreman had provoked him with a racial slur, but the Board rejected this evidence based on credibility findings.

The Board found that the respondent had just cause for discharge given the seriousness of the assault, the grievor's short employment record, and his lack of remorse.

The Board declined to substitute a lesser penalty and dismissed the grievance.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a comprehensive bargaining unit of paramedical employees at the respondent hospital.

A group of objecting professional paramedical employees argued they should be excluded from the unit, asserting a desire not to be represented by any union and citing differences between professional and technical paramedicals.

The Board, following its established policy in Stratford General Hospital, held that a single comprehensive unit of both professional and technical paramedical employees is appropriate to avoid undue fragmentation in the public hospital sector.

The objectors' request to be carved out was dismissed, and the Board directed that the segregated ballots be counted.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied for certification as the bargaining agent for registered and graduate nurses employed by the Regional Municipality of Halton at Halton Centennial Manor.

The respondent argued the nurses exercised managerial functions and were excluded from collective bargaining under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the nurses did not exercise effective control or authority over support staff in labour relations matters, nor did they make effective recommendations affecting employment conditions.

The Board concluded the nurses were employees under the Act and granted the certification.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent nursing home violated the Labour Relations Act by laying off its housekeeping and janitorial employees and contracting out their work.

The union argued the employer bargained in bad faith by failing to disclose this intention during negotiations and that the contracting out was motivated by anti-union animus to avoid the economic impact of the collective agreement.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer had no intention to contract out when the agreement was signed.

Furthermore, the Board held that the decision to contract out was a legitimate business decision motivated solely by a desire to save money, not by anti-union animus, and was permitted under the management rights clause of the collective agreement.