J. A. Rundle

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties disagreed on whether sales staff and cashiers should be included in the bargaining unit with yard workers and truck drivers.

The union requested the appointment of a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the community of interest, while the respondent employer argued the Board should hear evidence directly.

The Board directed the appointment of a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into and report on the community of interest and the nature of the work performed by specific individuals.

The applicant union filed an application for certification under the name of its Toronto Joint Board, but the membership evidence submitted was in the name of the international union.

The Board granted the applicant's unopposed request to amend the application to name the international union as the applicant.

However, the Board declined to proceed with the application without first providing fresh notice to the affected employees, emphasizing that employees have a right to notice and an opportunity to participate before a decision is made.

The Board directed the Registrar to issue new notices reflecting the amended applicant name and extended the terminal date.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and initially proposed a bargaining unit that excluded group leaders.

At the hearing, the parties agreed to amend the bargaining unit to include group leaders.

The applicant argued the Board should proceed without giving further notice to the group leaders.

The Board held that the group leaders were entitled to notice as their legal rights could be affected by the application.

The Board directed that a new Notice to Employees be posted and extended the terminal date.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for journeymen and apprentice painters employed by the respondent in the construction industry.

The respondent employer requested a hearing and a representation vote, arguing that certification would negatively impact its business and that employees were misled.

The Board denied the requests, noting that the size of the business and potential financial impact are irrelevant to certification, and the respondent failed to particularize its allegations of impropriety.

Finding that the applicant had demonstrated membership support of over fifty-five percent, the Board granted the application and issued certificates for both the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector province-wide and all other sectors in the relevant geographic area.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) applied for a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the Ontario Legal Aid Plan (OLAP) and four community legal clinics constituted a single employer.

OPSEU also alleged that OLAP engaged in intimidation or coercion contrary to section 70 of the Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that OLAP and the clinics were engaged in associated or related activities and were under common direction or control due to OLAP's significant involvement in the clinics' personnel and operational matters.

The Board exercised its discretion to declare OLAP a single employer with Neighbourhood Legal Services and Injured Workers' Consultants, but declined to do so for Community Legal Education Ontario.

The section 70 complaints were dismissed.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union brought six applications under the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act, alleging that the Crown transferred undertakings to various contractors who provided services such as snow plowing, garbage disposal, janitorial work, and park maintenance.

The Crown and the contractors argued that the applications should be dismissed because the Union had abandoned its bargaining rights and because some contractors had no employees and were therefore not 'employers' under the Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the contracted services constituted 'undertakings' that were transferred from the Crown.

The Board also found that a contractor need not have employees to be an 'employer' under the Act.

Finally, the Board held that even if the Union had abandoned its rights regarding earlier contracts, the undertakings reverted to the Crown upon the expiry of those contracts, creating a fresh transfer and a new opportunity for the Union to assert its rights.

The applications were granted, and the contractors were declared bound by the collective agreement.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The respondent employer failed to file a reply or a list of employees.

The intervener argued that a vote should not be directed without the respondent's records to assess the applicant's membership position.

The Board held that the purpose of the pre-hearing vote procedure is to test representation quickly, and the absence of the respondent's records does not preclude directing a vote based on the applicant's records.

The Board directed a pre-hearing representation vote and ordered the ballot box sealed pending a subsequent hearing.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer argued that the applicant had not proven it was a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1)(p) of the Labour Relations Act because its name on the application deviated slightly from the name previously recognized by the Board.

The Board heard evidence and concluded that the applicant was the same organization previously granted trade union status.

Applying section 105 of the Act, the Board found the previous determination was prima facie evidence of its status.

The Board cautioned applicants to use their exact recognized names to avoid unnecessary hearings, but granted the certification for the agreed bargaining unit.

The applicant and complainants requested that the Board reconsider and vary its previous decision to award damages to all employees affected by the union's breach of section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, rather than only the named complainants.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the complaint was filed only on behalf of the named complainants and that it is not the Board's function to award damages to persons on whose behalf no complaint has been made.

The Board noted that awarding damages to non-parties would be contrary to established remedial principles.

The applicant union applied for certification of employees at a new plant.

The employer and the incumbent union argued the application was untimely due to a recently signed collective agreement.

The applicant and employee complainants argued the agreement should be set aside under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act or as a remedy for the incumbent union's breach of its duty of fair representation under section 68.

The Board found that the incumbent union already held bargaining rights for the new plant under a prior city-wide agreement, so section 60 did not apply.

However, the Board held that the incumbent union breached section 68 by completely failing to consult the new plant's employees before concluding a separate, inferior collective agreement for them.

The Board declined to set aside the collective agreement as a remedy, finding it inappropriate to penalize the employer who had not breached the Act, but ordered the union to pay damages to the complainants for the loss of opportunity to be consulted.

The applicant union sought to withdraw a series of certification applications filed in 1984 with the intent to file new ones.

The respondent employers argued that the applications should be dismissed and a 10-month bar imposed on any new applications pursuant to section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board dismissed the applications but declined to impose a bar, noting that section 103(2)(i) is not a penal provision and should not be applied where the union's legal position was ultimately vindicated in earlier proceedings.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

A group of employees sought to file a statement of opposition after the terminal date and requested an extension of time.

The Board declined to extend the terminal date, noting that the employees had sufficient notice and time to file their objections.

As the union filed timely documentary evidence of membership for more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit, the Board granted the application and issued a certificate.

The complainant was discharged after refusing to lift a heavy hutch, citing concerns about injuring his back.

He filed a complaint alleging his discharge violated section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which prohibits reprisals for exercising rights under the Act.

The Board found that the complainant had reason to believe the work was unsafe and that the employer failed to prove the discharge was not a reprisal for his work refusal.

The Board ordered compensation for wages and benefits lost during the thirty-day period following his discharge.

The complainant union requested that the Board file its previous determination with the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Ontario, alleging that the respondent employer failed to comply with an order to reinstate and compensate a discharged union organizer.

The respondent did not reply to the allegations of non-compliance.

The Board directed that the determination be filed for enforcement, except for the unquantified compensation portion, over which the Board remained seized.

The Board also amended the respondent's name in the style of cause.

The complainant requested reconsideration of a prior decision, asking the Board to provide written reasons for oral rulings made during the hearing.

The Board denied the request, noting that the rulings had no bearing on the final decision, which ultimately found in the complainant's favour regarding the respondent's breach of the Labour Relations Act.

Providing written reasons would serve no purpose.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration, alleging the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement by assigning work to non-members.

The respondent argued it was not bound by the agreement, asserting the union had abandoned its bargaining rights.

The Board found that the union had not contacted the respondent to negotiate or administer the agreement for almost 15 years, despite the respondent operating openly in the relevant geographic area.

Consequently, the Board concluded the union had voluntarily abandoned its bargaining rights prior to the introduction of province-wide bargaining, and dismissed the application.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 107 of the Labour Relations Act regarding whether the trade union held bargaining rights for the employer's carpenters in all sectors other than the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector in Board Area 3, and whether the union's request for a conciliation officer was proper.

The employer argued that the union never had non-ICI bargaining rights, or alternatively, had abandoned them.

The Board found that the original 1965 collective agreement granted the union bargaining rights for all sectors, and that the union had not abandoned these rights despite a period of inactivity, as the employer had not performed non-ICI work in the area during that time.

The Board concluded that the union held the bargaining rights and the Minister had the authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

In a jurisdictional dispute under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act, the parties failed to file the required pre-hearing briefs and documentation as mandated by the Board's Rules of Procedure and Practice Note 15.

The Board expressed its dissatisfaction with the parties' disregard for the procedural rules, noting that such non-compliance wastes the Board's time and resources.

The Board emphasized that moving forward, strict adherence to the rules and practice notes will be expected to ensure the orderly and expeditious resolution of jurisdictional disputes.

The complainant sought to reopen two complaints regarding union financial statements that had been previously settled and withdrawn.

The complainant argued that the financial statements provided under the settlement were prepared by a Certified General Accountant rather than a Chartered Accountant.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the request, finding that the complainant was aware of the accountant's qualifications when signing the settlement and that the Act does not require a Chartered Accountant unless directed by the Board.

The Board emphasized the importance of finality in settlements.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to displace the incumbent union representing the respondent's woods operations employees.

Following a pre-hearing representation vote where more than fifty percent of ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no party requesting a hearing, the Ontario Labour Relations Board disposed of the application on the materials.

The Board adopted the voting constituency as the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.