J. A. Rundle

The applicant union applied for certification.

The employer and the incumbent union argued the application was untimely under section 7(6) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, because the collective agreement had automatically renewed.

The employer also argued its labour relations were governed by the Canada Labour Code, not provincial legislation.

The Board deferred holding a representation vote and directed the parties to provide written submissions on the timeliness and constitutional jurisdiction issues.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding her authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The union had requested conciliation after giving notice to bargain to the employer, which objected on the basis that it had contracted out all cleaning work to a successor employer, leaving the bargaining unit empty.

The Board advised that the deemed sale of the business did not terminate the union's bargaining rights or its collective agreement with the predecessor employer.

Therefore, the union was entitled to give notice to bargain, and the Minister has the authority to appoint a conciliation officer, despite the practical difficulties of bargaining for an empty unit.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board determined it could rely on membership evidence in the form of combination cards signed between six months and one year prior to the application date.

Finding that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members, the Board directed a representation vote.

One Board Member dissented.

The employer applied for a declaration terminating the union's bargaining rights for a unit of security guards under the transitional provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

As a preliminary issue, the employer argued that the doctrine of issue estoppel applied based on a 1994 Board decision between the same parties that found a conflict of interest existed.

The majority of the Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that while the facts had not changed, the statutory context and the legal test for conflict of interest had materially changed under the new legislation.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to schedule a hearing on the merits.

One Board member dissented.

The union applied for certification to represent casual recreation employees of the City of Toronto.

The City argued that a representation vote should not have been ordered because the union did not establish that it had the support of 40% of the actual employees in the unit, claiming the unit was much larger than the union estimated.

The Board held that under the new Bill 7 amendments to the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the 40% threshold for ordering a quick representation vote is determined based solely on the union's estimate of the bargaining unit size in its application, not on a definitive factual finding of the unit's actual composition.

The union won the representation vote, and the Board ordered that a certificate issue.

The applicant union sought to certify a bargaining unit of chicken catchers employed by the responding party.

The responding party argued that the employees were agricultural workers and therefore excluded from the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that catching chickens in the barns where they are raised is a harvesting function integral to the agricultural operation, distinct from the industrial processing of the chickens.

Consequently, the employees were deemed agricultural workers, and the certification application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint under s. 91(7) of the Labour Relations Act alleging the responding party failed to comply with a written settlement agreement resolving an earlier unfair labour practice complaint.

The responding party argued the settlement was void due to the applicant's failure to disclose that another employee intended to file a similar complaint, and alleged issues with union membership evidence.

The Board held that the applicant had no duty to disclose the other employee's intentions and that the settlement terms were clear and binding.

The Board ordered the responding party to comply with the settlement and pay the agreed funds, but declined to award interest due to the applicant's delay in bringing the enforcement application.

The applicants, members of the responding party union, brought an application alleging that the union violated the Labour Relations Act by concluding local collective agreements at variance with the provincial agreement.

The union had obtained a mandate from its members to offer contractors a concession to work at 85% of the provincial wage rate to combat non-union competition.

The Employer Bargaining Agency and the Ontario Provincial Council subsequently authorized this variation retroactively.

The Board found that the applicants had standing, but dismissed the application, holding that the provincial bargaining agencies were empowered to amend the provincial agreement and that such amendments could legitimately be made retroactive.

The Minister referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether Goderich Place Retirement Residence is a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The Board found that the residence, which provides shelter, care, and assistance with daily living for the elderly, qualifies as a 'home for the aged' and therefore falls within the statutory definition of a hospital.

A dissenting board member disagreed with the application of the Act to this type of residence.

The applicant union applied for certification of a single retail store location.

The responding employer argued that a single store unit was inappropriate due to the frequent interchange of employees among its six Toronto-area stores and centralized training and buying practices, proposing instead a municipal-wide unit.

The Board applied the Hospital for Sick Children test and found that the single location unit would not cause serious labour relations problems.

The Board granted interim certification for the single store unit, pending the resolution of disputed supervisory classifications.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer terminated two employees and intimidated others during an organizing campaign.

The employer did not attend the hearing, citing financial inability to travel to Toronto, and the Board declined to change the venue to Thunder Bay based on its travel policy.

The Board found that the employer breached sections 65, 67, and 71 of the Labour Relations Act by terminating the employees for their union support and creating a climate of fear.

The Board ordered the employees reinstated and certified the union under section 9.2 of the Act.

The applicants brought an application under sections 1(4) and 64 of the Labour Relations Act following the purchase of several farm co-operatives.

The responding trade unions raised a preliminary constitutional objection, arguing that the Ontario Labour Relations Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicants operated feed mills and seed cleaning mills, which are declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada under the Canada Wheat Board Act.

The Board applied the core/subsidiary integration test and found that the retail and other provincial operations were not sufficiently integrated into the federal works to bring the entire enterprise under federal jurisdiction.

The constitutional objection was dismissed, and the Board assumed jurisdiction to hear the merits of the application.

The applicant union sought interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to prohibit the employer from relocating planing mill operations to a sawmill facility, or alternatively, an order assigning the planing work to its members pending the disposition of related unfair labour practice and work assignment complaints.

The employer planned to consolidate operations, taking the position that the relocated work would fall under the respondent union's collective agreement.

The Board found an arguable case for the work assignment but concluded the balance of harm did not favour granting interim relief, as the applicant did not challenge the employer's right to transfer operations and a temporary reassignment of work would cause equal prejudice to the respondent union.

The application for interim relief was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification to displace the incumbent union representing police officers at the University of Toronto.

The incumbent union and the employer argued that the application was untimely because their collective agreement had been extended pursuant to the Social Contract Act.

The Board held that the Social Contract Act does not explicitly or implicitly protect incumbent bargaining agents from displacement applications during the open periods defined in the Labour Relations Act.

The Board concluded that the application was timely and directed that the ballots cast in the pre-hearing representation vote be counted.

The union applied for certification.

The employer alleged that union organizers and supporters made material misrepresentations and threats to job security during the organizing campaign, specifically telling employees they would not be protected if they did not sign union cards.

The Board found that paid union organizers did not make such statements.

While a fellow employee may have made ambiguous statements, they did not amount to intimidation or a material misrepresentation that would invalidate the membership evidence.

The Board granted an interim certificate.

The United Steelworkers of America applied for certification to represent employees at Royalguard Vinyl Co. The company and an intervening employee alleged that union organizers used threats and intimidation to coerce employees into signing membership cards.

After a 40-day hearing, the Ontario Labour Relations Board (majority) found the company's witnesses lacked credibility and that the allegations of threats were unsubstantiated.

The Board applied the collateral fact rule to exclude certain cross-examination questions aimed at impeaching a union witness.

Finding the union's membership evidence reliable and demonstrating support of more than 55% of the bargaining unit, the Board certified the union without a representation vote.

One Board Member dissented, arguing that the union's witnesses lacked credibility and a representation vote should have been ordered.

The union applied for remedial relief following a Board decision directing the combination of full-time and part-time bargaining units.

The union alleged the employer failed to respond to attempts to negotiate a merged collective agreement.

The Board declined to immediately re-list the matter for hearing, reminding the parties of their duty to bargain the consequences of the combination order.

The Board directed the union to provide a detailed description of the requested remedies and material facts, and the employer to respond, before determining whether and when to re-list the matter.

The employer requested reconsideration of a Board decision ordering it to cease using replacement workers during a strike.

The employer sought to resile from its earlier agreement that the union's strike vote complied with the Labour Relations Act, citing newly acquired information about the vote's conduct.

The Board dismissed the request, holding that parties are bound by their agreements and tactical decisions made during hearings, and permitting a party to reopen issues based on after-acquired information would undermine the finality of Board proceedings.

The union applied for an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to reinstate three employees who were terminated during a union organizing campaign.

The Board found that the union established an arguable case that the terminations violated the Act.

Applying the balance of harm test, the Board declined to reinstate one employee due to significant health and safety risks associated with his operation of a forklift.

However, the Board ordered the interim reinstatement of the other two employees, finding that the harm to the union's organizing campaign outweighed the employer's concerns regarding their alleged workplace misconduct.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the union violated section 74(4) of the Labour Relations Act by failing to conduct a strike vote by secret ballot.

The union raised a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint due to undue delay.

The Board found that the applicant was aware of the alleged irregularities at the time of the vote but delayed filing the complaint for nearly two months, during which time the union and employer relied on the strike mandate and commenced a strike.

The Board concluded that the delay was significant and unexplained, and exercised its discretion to dismiss the application without inquiring into the merits.