J. D. Bell

The Minister referred a request to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 139 of the Labour Relations Act to amend an employer bargaining agency designation.

The applicant, previously an unincorporated association, incorporated to facilitate normal business transactions and sought to have the designation amended to reflect its new corporate status.

The Board found that the incorporated association had the full capacity to function as a designated employer bargaining agency and that the amendment would not adversely affect collective bargaining in the construction industry.

The Board advised the Minister to accede to the application.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent electricians and apprentices employed by the respondent in the construction industry, seeking to displace the incumbent union.

The respondent and intervener argued the voting constituency should match the existing collective agreement, while the applicant argued it must comply with section 144(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ruled that the voting constituency must be described in terms compatible with section 144(1) and directed a representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification and a pre-hearing representation vote was held, resulting in a majority for the union.

A group of objecting employees sought a new vote, alleging that union supporters excluded them from organizational meetings and that a union representative was improperly present near the polling area during the vote.

The Board held that organizers are not required to invite all employees to organizational meetings.

The Board also found that the union representative's presence near the polling area did not destroy the secrecy of the ballot or influence the vote.

The objections were dismissed and a certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the employer breached the collective agreement regarding reporting pay.

Five carpenters worked five hours of pre-arranged overtime on a Sunday and were paid for five hours at double time.

The union argued that under Article 18, the employees were entitled to an additional four hours' pay because they worked one hour into the second half of the shift.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that Article 18 applies only to regularly scheduled daily work and not to extraordinary overtime situations on weekends where there are no normal daily hours.

The applicant, a university professor, applied under section 47 of the Labour Relations Act for an exemption from paying mandatory union dues to the faculty association on the basis of his religious beliefs.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the three-part Wybinga test.

While the Board accepted that the applicant held sincere religious beliefs, it found that his objections to the union were primarily socio-political, relating to the adversarial nature of unions in a university setting and the impact of strikes on students.

The majority concluded that the applicant was rationalizing his general objections to trade unions in terms of his religious beliefs, and dismissed the application.

One member dissented, finding the religious objection bona fide.

The applicant union applied for certification of a part-time support staff unit at the respondent's hospital in Wiarton.

The respondent argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should also include employees at a recently acquired hospital in Lion's Head, citing common administration and a small float team of employees working at both locations.

The Board rejected the respondent's argument, noting its normal practice of defining bargaining units by municipal boundaries and the lack of organizing interest at the Lion's Head facility.

The Board found the Wiarton-only unit appropriate and, satisfied that more than 55% of the employees were union members, ordered a certificate to issue.

The applicant union referred two grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer violated the collective agreement regarding emergency help, the hiring of first-year apprentices, and the lay-off of a job steward.

The Board dismissed the grievances relating to the emergency help and apprentices, finding that the union's telegram did not effectively end the emergency as it did not supply replacement workers, and that the employer was entitled to hire new first-year apprentices under the agreement.

However, the Board allowed the grievance regarding the job steward, finding that the employer violated the agreement by terminating the steward while there were still more than six men on the overall job site.

One Board member dissented on the dismissal of the first two issues.

The applicant union alleged that Molson's Brewery transferred part of its business to two subcontractors, Charming Hostess Inc. and Amsterdam Catering Services Limited, or alternatively, that the three entities should be treated as a single employer under the Labour Relations Act.

Molson's had closed its internal hospitality room and contracted with the respondents to provide upgraded food and hostess services in a new facility.

The Board found that Molson's had not disposed of part of its business but merely contracted for services to enhance its own operations.

The Board also declined to make a related employer declaration, noting the subcontractors were independent businesses and the union was attempting to extend, rather than preserve, its bargaining rights.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and filed membership evidence for over 55% of the bargaining unit.

A group of employees filed a statement of desire (petition) opposing the union, which included signatures from employees who had previously signed union cards.

The union argued the petition was not voluntary because the employer had announced new written policies and benefits shortly after receiving notice of the certification application, allegedly violating the statutory freeze.

The majority of the Board found that the employer's actions were part of an ongoing process and did not unduly influence the employees, concluding the petition was voluntary and directing a representation vote.

A dissenting Board member found the employer's actions violated the statutory freeze and unlawfully interfered with the employees' choice.

The applicant applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine whether five individuals were 'employees' under the Act.

The Board reviewed the Labour Relations Officer's report and written submissions.

The Board found that the administrative assistant to the Director of Human Resources, the Administrative Services Supervisor, and the Co-ordinator of the Education Centre exercised managerial functions or were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations, and were therefore excluded from the definition of 'employee' under section 1(3)(b).

The Research Co-ordinator and the Co-ordinator of Employment Relations Services were found to be employees for the purposes of the Act.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint after the employer unilaterally subcontracted the work of its housekeeping, laundry, maintenance, and kitchen staff, terminating approximately one quarter of the bargaining unit.

This occurred during negotiations for a first collective agreement.

The Board found that the employer's decision was motivated by anti-union animus and a desire to avoid collective bargaining, violating several provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

Furthermore, the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith by failing to disclose and discuss its subcontracting plans during negotiations.

The Board ordered the employer to reinstate the terminated employees, compensate them for lost wages, and commence bargaining in good faith.

The union filed complaints alleging unfair labour practices and applications for declarations of a sale of a business against the predecessor employer, The Winchester Press Limited, and the successor employers, 2Womor Publications Inc. and Winchester Print.

The Board declared that a sale of a business had occurred to both successor employers.

The Board found that the predecessor employer contravened the Labour Relations Act by refusing to continue to employ a union supporter, Donna MacNaughton, due to anti-union animus.

However, the Board found no contravention regarding the layoff of another employee, Ray Larsen.

The Board also found that the successor employers did not contravene the Act by refusing to hire the grievors, as their decisions were based on bona fide economic considerations and recommendations from the predecessor, without knowledge of the anti-union animus.

The predecessor employer was ordered to compensate MacNaughton for lost wages and benefits.

In an application for certification, a representation vote was held.

The day before the vote, the employer laid off a significant number of employees due to the completion of a contract.

The ballots of the laid-off employees were segregated.

The union protested the segregation.

The Board held that employees on indefinite lay-off are generally ineligible to vote, but those with substantial and legitimate expectations of being recalled in the near future should not be disenfranchised.

The Board directed that the ballots of 11 laid-off employees who had returned to work or had a clear expectation of recall be counted, while the remaining 17 segregated ballots were not to be counted.

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

The parties agreed to two bargaining units for bus drivers, separating full-time from part-time and student employees.

Although the Board generally avoids restrictive bargaining unit descriptions confined to specific classifications, it accepted the agreement in this case due to the employer's unique operations, previous voluntary recognition of other units, and reliance on a prior Board decision.

The Board directed that pre-hearing representation votes be taken for both constituencies.

The complainants, a former Business Manager and his wife, filed a complaint against the respondent union alleging violations of the Labour Relations Act, including intimidation, coercion, and sexual discrimination, following a disputed union election.

The respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the allegations under section 68, as the complainants were not employees in a bargaining unit, and under section 13, which does not create a standalone offence for sexual discrimination.

However, the Board refused to dismiss the allegations under sections 3 and 70, finding that the alleged pattern of intimidatory and coercive conduct designed to frustrate the union's democratic election processes raised a prima facie case.

The applicant union sought to set aside the results of a pre-hearing representation vote, arguing that the presence of the respondent employer's management personnel near the polling area intimidated voters.

The Board found that while it is preferable for management to absent themselves from the voting area, their mere presence, without evidence of electioneering, propagandizing, or other unfair labour practices, did not destroy the secrecy of the ballot or prevent employees from expressing their true wishes.

The application for certification was dismissed as the union failed to obtain more than fifty percent of the ballots cast.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer discharged the grievor because of her union activity, contrary to section 66 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer maintained that the grievor was discharged pursuant to its disciplinary practice after receiving a third written warning for violating published rules.

The Board found that the employer established good cause for the discharge and that there was insufficient evidence to infer the employer had knowledge of the grievor's union activities or acted out of anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant hospital applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether three medical secretaries were employees within the meaning of the Act, arguing they should be excluded due to their confidential capacity in labour relations matters.

The union argued the status of one secretary was already settled in prior negotiations.

The Board dismissed the application regarding the first secretary, finding no material change in duties since the parties agreed to include the position in the bargaining unit.

For all three secretaries, the Board found their access to confidential board of directors' minutes was too remote to constitute a regular and material involvement in labour relations matters.

The Board concluded they were not employed in a confidential capacity and remained in the bargaining unit.

Following a positive last offer vote, the trade unions refused to execute a collective agreement, citing concerns over a last-minute statement by the employer.

The Board previously ordered the unions to execute the agreement and scheduled a hearing on damages.

The employer claimed over $700,000, primarily for security services and truck rentals during the strike.

The Board held that compensation is not automatically awarded from the date of a vote if a union has a good faith objection.

However, the unions were held liable for damages incurred after the Board's initial decision was released, as they continued the picket line and condoned misconduct.

The Board awarded $13,093.19 for truck damage, truck rentals, and a portion of the security costs.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a unit of foremen employed by the respondent.

The respondent argued that the foremen exercised managerial functions and were therefore excluded from the definition of 'employee' under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board examined the duties and responsibilities of the foremen, including their role in disciplining employees, responding to grievances, and assessing probationary employees.

The majority of the Board concluded that the foremen exercised true managerial functions and dismissed the application for certification.

One Board member dissented, finding the foremen's duties to be merely supervisory.