J. A. Rundle

The objecting employees and the employer challenged the validity of a ratification vote conducted by the union.

The ballot presented a choice between accepting the employer's offer or rejecting it and authorizing a strike.

The applicants argued that this compound ballot violated the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by failing to provide a clear 'yes' or 'no' choice on ratification alone.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the challenge, holding that the Act does not mandate a simple 'yes' or 'no' ballot and that the combined ratification/strike ballot is a realistic collective bargaining choice that does not prevent employees from expressing their true wishes.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board directed a representation vote to be held.

The responding party requested that the Board exercise its discretion under section 7(9) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to refuse to consider the application for one year; the Board deferred this issue until after the vote.

A dissenting Board member would have ordered the ballot box sealed pending the determination of the section 7(9) issue.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party trade union's bargaining rights.

The Board found the application timely but noted that of the 26 pieces of membership evidence filed, 11 were undated and one did not indicate the person's intentions.

Because less than forty per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a valid wish not to be represented by the trade union at the time the application was filed, the Board dismissed the application.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The responding employer disagreed with the union's estimate of the number of individuals in the bargaining unit under section 8.1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and argued the proposed unit was not appropriate.

The Board found that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in either proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board ordered a representation vote and directed that the ballot box not be sealed, leaving the issue of the appropriate bargaining unit to be determined at a subsequent hearing if necessary.

The applicant applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party trade union no longer represented the employees in the bargaining unit.

The applicant estimated the bargaining unit at 400 employees, while the union and employer indicated there were over 900 employees.

After the Board directed submissions on the disparity, the applicant conceded it had no basis to challenge the employer's list.

As less than forty per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the union, the Board dismissed the application.

The applicant union filed an application for certification shortly after an unsuccessful application by its parent International union for the same bargaining unit.

The employer argued the application was subject to a mandatory bar or should be refused.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the two campaigns were contiguous and employees would not have perceived a meaningful difference between the two applicants.

While finding the mandatory bar did not apply to a nominally different applicant, the Board exercised its discretion under section 111(2)(k) of the Labour Relations Act to refuse to entertain the application.

The Board declined to impose a bar on subsequent applications.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board considered a reference under section 3(2) of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act to determine whether employees of a third-party catering company working at a nursing home are 'hospital employees'.

The employees worked as cooks, dietary aides, and porters.

The Board concluded that the employees are 'hospital employees' because their functions are essential to the operation of the nursing home and the residents depend on these services for their health and well-being.

The Board emphasized that the statute focuses on the function performed rather than the identity of the employer.

In an application for certification, the Board held a representation vote but segregated the ballots due to disputes over the bargaining unit description and the voters list.

The applicant union sought to prevent the employer from challenging the inclusion of four employees on the list, arguing it was an attempt at gerrymandering after seeing the vote count.

The Board dismissed this motion, noting that under the vote-based system, parties may adjust their positions prior to the preparation of the Officer's Report.

The Board also ruled that the applicant's proposed bargaining unit, which sought to exclude general labour/maintenance employees, was inappropriate as it would cause undue fragmentation and potentially deny those employees collective representation.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The responding party employer argued that the union did not have the requisite 40% support because the membership evidence was dated more than six months prior to the application date.

The Board held that it may properly have regard to membership evidence signed between six months and one year prior to the application date.

The Board found that not less than 40% of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union and directed a representation vote.

A dissenting board member argued that untimely membership evidence should not be cured through a representation vote.

The applicants, OPSEU and AMAPCEO, challenged the employer's determination that several positions within the Ontario Financing Authority (OFA) were excluded from their respective bargaining units under the amended Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act (CECBA).

The employer argued that the positions were excluded under paragraph 14 of section 1.1(3) of CECBA, which excludes persons involved in borrowing, investing, or managing the assets and liabilities of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, or providing necessary support services.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found it had jurisdiction to determine the employee status.

The Board held that Customer Service Representatives at the Province of Ontario Savings Office (POSO) were not excluded because they did not make financial commitments or decisions.

However, the Board found that the Manager of Administrative Services, Financial Officer - Swaps, Project Manager (Capital Markets Programmer), and Bank Funding & Fiscal Agency Supervisor were excluded as they either managed assets and liabilities or provided specialized services necessary to those activities.

The applicant union sought interim orders under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to prevent the responding employer from implementing its final offer or recalling employees pending the disposition of an unfair labour practice complaint.

The union alleged that the employer's pre-vote conduct, including threats of plant closure and offers of cash payments, tainted a section 42 final offer vote.

The Board found an arguable case but dismissed the application, concluding that the balance of harm favoured the employer, who was suffering significant financial losses, over the union.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The intervenor argued the application was untimely under section 28(2) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997, as it was filed during the 10-day period following a request for an order under section 22.

The applicant contended that 'days' should be interpreted as 'working days', excluding weekends and holidays.

The Board held that in the absence of a statutory qualification limiting the period to working days, 'days' means calendar days.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as untimely.

The Ministry of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Residential Treatment Centre is a 'hospital' under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The employer provides long-term residential treatment to moderately to severely conduct-disordered adolescents.

Based on the written submissions, the Board found that the employer offers observation, care, and treatment for residents suffering from physical or mental illness on both a medical and personal level.

The Board advised the Ministry that the employer is a hospital within the meaning of the Act.

The union applied for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration under section 43 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A termination application was also pending.

At the hearing, the employer offered to sign the union's proposed collective agreement and moved to dismiss the first contract application.

The union resisted, arguing the employer's offer was a tactical move to allow the termination application to proceed.

The majority of the Board dismissed the employer's motion, finding that the statutory preconditions for a first contract application were met and that the issue of whether collective bargaining had been unsuccessful required a full evidentiary hearing.

A dissenting Board member would have dismissed the application, finding that the employer's acceptance of the union's offer created a binding contract.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer terminated two maintenance employees and contracted out their work because the union claimed they were part of the bargaining unit.

The employer argued the decision was made for economic reasons prior to the union's claim.

The Board found that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving the decision was free from anti-union animus, noting the timing of the terminations and the lack of evidence supporting a prior final decision to contract out.

The Board ordered the employees reinstated with compensation.

One Board member dissented.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging the employer committed an unlawful reprisal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Smoking in the Workplace Act by failing to accommodate his need to avoid second-hand smoke.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant had already elected to proceed by way of a grievance arbitration.

The Board held that section 50(6) of the OHSA does not grant the Board exclusive jurisdiction over Crown employees to the exclusion of arbitration.

The application was dismissed as the applicant had elected to proceed before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights shortly after the union applied for first contract arbitration.

The Board previously determined it would consider the first contract application before the termination application.

During the first contract hearings, the employer and union reached a settlement, and the Board issued a consent order directing the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

Consequently, pursuant to the mandatory language of section 43(23) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board dismissed the termination application, rejecting arguments that doing so violated the employees' Charter rights.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to displace the incumbent union.

The issue was whether the application was timely.

The parties were subject to the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA) and an interest arbitration board had issued an award that remitted the issue of lay-off and recall language back to the parties for negotiation.

The Board held that the interest arbitration award was not a final decision on all matters in dispute, and therefore the 90-day extension period under s. 10(12) of the HLDAA had not yet commenced.

Consequently, the application for certification was premature and untimely, and was dismissed.

The applicant trade union filed an unfair labour practice complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding parties—various receivers and secured creditors of the bankrupt employer—violated section 70 by failing to remit approximately $35,000 in union dues deducted prior to the bankruptcy.

The responding parties raised preliminary objections that the application did not disclose a prima facie case and that the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the receivers and creditors could not be characterized as 'persons acting on behalf of an employer' under section 70.

Furthermore, the Board held that the claim for unremitted dues was a 'claim provable in bankruptcy' and was therefore caught by the stay of proceedings under section 69.3(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The employer applied under section 5(2) of the transitional provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that a combined full-time and part-time bargaining unit was no longer appropriate.

The union argued that the Board should apply its modern approach to community of interest, focusing on whether the combined unit caused serious labour relations problems.

The Board rejected this approach, finding that the transitional provisions required a traditional community of interest analysis.

Given the significant differences in terms and conditions of employment and the traditional nature of the part-time student workforce, the Board found no community of interest and declared the combined unit inappropriate.