J. D. Bell

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

The intervener, the incumbent union, argued that the applicant must first prove its status as a trade union before a vote could be directed.

The Board, following its previous jurisprudence, held that there was no reason to single out the trade union status issue for special treatment and directed the pre-hearing vote, deferring the resolution of the status issue to a subsequent hearing.

One Board Member dissented, arguing that directing a vote before status is proven misleads employees and disrupts established bargaining relationships.

The applicant sought an exemption from paying union dues based on his religious convictions under section 47 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent union requested the application be dismissed without a hearing because it was untimely, as the applicant commenced employment after the collective agreement containing the union security clause was first entered into.

The applicant argued the timeliness restriction was discriminatory and conflicted with the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Board held that the statutory language was clear and unequivocal, and that the Code does not have primacy over the Labour Relations Act.

The application was dismissed without a hearing for failing to make out a prima facie case.

In an application for certification, a pre-hearing representation vote resulted in a tie with four segregated ballots.

The Board held a hearing to determine the eligibility of the employees who cast the segregated ballots.

Applying the 'seven week rule', the Board determined that one employee was eligible to vote as a full-time employee, while the others were ineligible as part-time employees or students employed during the school vacation period.

Because counting the single eligible segregated ballot would reveal how that employee voted, the Board directed that a new representation vote be taken to preserve the secrecy of the ballot.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent cleaning and maintenance employees, including resident superintendents.

A dispute arose over whether the wives of the superintendents, who worked as part of a team but were not paid directly or subject to statutory deductions, were 'employees' under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the wives were employees because they performed work under the respondent's direction and control and shared accommodation provided by the respondent.

A representation vote was ordered.

The applicant union sought to displace the incumbent union and be certified as the bargaining agent for employees at the respondent's Toronto nursing home.

The incumbent union argued that the appropriate bargaining unit was its existing comprehensive multi-location unit covering several nursing homes.

The Board found that the established multi-location bargaining structure had been in place for years without issue and was presumptively appropriate.

The Board declined to fragment the established unit, finding the proposed single-location unit inappropriate.

As the applicant lacked sufficient membership support in the broader unit, the application was dismissed.

The respondent employer requested that the Board reconsider its decision to certify a bargaining unit of part-time employees and summer students.

The employer argued that the Board should have applied the build-up principle and deferred the application until the summer student complement increased.

The Board found no basis to reconsider its decision, noting that its historical policy is not to permit a cyclical increase in summer students to defer an application made at another time of the year, and that the employer's arguments regarding turnover were not supported by evidence presented at the hearing.

The applicant union and intervener union both applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent.

The respondent argued that the representation vote should be delayed until July 1982 due to a planned build-up of its workforce.

The Board applied the planned build-up principle, balancing the rights of current and future employees.

Finding that the expansion beyond January 1982 was dependent on uncertain market factors, the Board determined that a representative group of employees would be present by August 1, 1981, and ordered an immediate representation vote.

The Town of Gananoque sought a declaration under section 95(2) of the Labour Relations Act that an accounting clerk was not an employee within the meaning of section 1(3)(b) due to her employment in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

The majority of the Board found that the clerk's access to sensitive written material prepared for the Town's bargaining committee created a conflict of interest, justifying her exclusion from the bargaining unit.

A dissenting member argued her involvement was too peripheral to warrant exclusion.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the respondent was a successor employer following the sale of a business and was therefore bound by the existing collective agreement.

The respondent admitted the sale occurred but argued the Board had general discretion under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act to declare it not bound by the agreement.

The Board rejected this argument, finding that section 55 is declaratory in nature and automatically flows bargaining rights through to the successor employer, subject only to specific statutory exceptions.

The Board declared the respondent bound by the collective agreement.

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

An intervener employees' association also applied for certification but did not request a vote.

Because the intervener had not previously established its status as a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, the applicant requested that the pre-hearing vote be deferred until the intervener's status was determined.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the applicant's request, distinguishing prior cases where the applicant's own status was in question, and directed that the matter be listed for a hearing to allow the intervener to establish its trade union status before any vote is held.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of part-time employees and students.

The respondent employer objected, arguing that the application should be deferred under the 'build-up' principle because it planned to hire additional students for a new summer outdoor cafe.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rejected this argument, holding that the build-up principle does not apply to normal seasonal fluctuations in the workforce outside of historically-recognized industries like canning and tobacco-harvesting.

The Board found the current complement of part-time employees to be representative for most of the year and granted certification.

The applicant requested the Board to reconsider its decision dismissing an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The applicant argued the Board's decision was contrary to the weight of evidence and that the Board applied overly strict rules to the petition.

The Board found no new grounds for reconsideration, noting that the petition was circulated in a cafeteria where supervisors were present, making it impossible to conclude the signatures represented a voluntary expression of the employees' wishes.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed, with one Board member dissenting.

The intervener, Labourers' Local 183, requested that the Board reconsider its decision certifying the Christian Labour Association of Canada (CLAC) as the bargaining agent for the respondent's employees.

Local 183 alleged that CLAC obtained its membership evidence with the assistance of the employer, contrary to section 12 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that while the employer had mentioned CLAC to some employees, he did not tell them they had to join the union to work, and CLAC neither sought nor knowingly benefited from management support.

The Board concluded that section 12 did not apply and denied the request for reconsideration.

The union applied for certification for employees of Bright Veal Meat Packers Ltd. The employer requested that the Board apply section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act to treat Bright Veal and Globe Wholesale Meats Inc. as one employer, arguing they were associated businesses under common control.

The Board found comprehensive integration and significant intermingling of employees between the two operations.

The Board declared the two companies to be one employer to prevent undue fragmentation of bargaining rights.

As the union did not have sufficient membership support in the combined bargaining unit, the application for certification was dismissed.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer laid off sixteen employees to interfere with a union organizing campaign.

The employer claimed the layoffs were due to automation and economic reasons.

Applying the reverse onus under section 79(4a) of the Labour Relations Act, the Board found that while some layoffs were justified by business reasons, the extent of the layoffs was motivated in part by anti-union animus upon the employer learning of the certification application.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the four most senior laid-off employees with compensation.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the respondent school board violated the subcontracting provision of the provincial collective agreement by awarding a construction contract to a non-union general contractor.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the respondent was acting in its capacity as an owner letting a primary contract, rather than as an employer in the construction industry subcontracting out work.

Because the respondent did not itself subcontract out any work, its actions did not fall within the purview of the collective agreement's subcontracting restriction.

The applicant, an association of graduate students in the chemistry department, applied for certification as a bargaining agent.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish its status as a trade union under the Labour Relations Act because its constitution was not properly ratified at a general meeting.

The Board also noted in obiter that a bargaining unit restricted to a single university department would be inappropriate due to the risk of fragmentation.

The complainant, a temporary employee, filed a complaint alleging that the respondent trade union breached its duty of fair representation under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to grieve her termination.

The union argued that temporary employees were excluded from the bargaining unit and therefore it owed no duty to the complainant.

The Board found that while the union had negotiated certain benefits for temporary employees, it had not obtained voluntary recognition to represent them as part of the bargaining unit.

As the complainant was not an employee in a bargaining unit that the union was entitled to represent, the complaint was dismissed.

The Board received letters from objecting employees requesting reconsideration of its decision granting certification to the union.

The Board denied the request, finding no new evidence was presented that could not have been adduced at the original hearing.

The Board also clarified its remedial order regarding management's access to employees, stating it does not prohibit conversations unrelated to the union or employment terms.

Finally, the Board revoked the portion of its order requiring compensation to two employees for unfair labour practices, pending further submissions on its jurisdiction to award such compensation.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that two related construction companies constituted one employer and were bound by its collective agreement.

The respondent companies were under common control, but one operated as a unionized company while the other operated non-union.

When the unionized company was denied a subcontract because it lacked affiliation with the Carpenters union, the non-union company signed a voluntary recognition agreement with the Carpenters to secure the work.

The Board found that the Carpenters' bargaining rights were validly acquired based on pre-existing contractual obligations and declined to exercise its discretion to revoke those rights, dismissing the application.