J. D. Bell

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of faculty and professional librarians at Trent University.

The Board previously certified the applicant on an interim basis and appointed an Examiner to inquire into the duties of 'College Heads'.

After reviewing the Examiner's report, the Board determined that College Heads exercise significant managerial functions, particularly regarding the supervision and administration of support staff, which occupies half of their time.

Consequently, the Board held that College Heads are excluded from the bargaining unit under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act and issued a formal certificate.

Following the quashing of its earlier certification decision by the Supreme Court of Ontario, the Ontario Labour Relations Board considered whether it had jurisdiction to proceed with the original certification applications.

The respondent and objecting employees argued the Board was functus officio or that proceeding would create an apprehension of bias.

The Board held that the Court's order quashed only the decision, not the entire proceeding, and that the applications remained outstanding.

The Board directed that the original applications be scheduled for hearing before a freshly constituted panel to avoid any apprehension of bias.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent union violated the statutory freeze period under section 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent union had unilaterally issued withdrawal cards to the grievors, who were its representatives and members of a bargaining unit recently certified by the complainant.

The Board found that the respondent altered a right, privilege, or term of employment without consent, as the issuance of withdrawal cards was not demanded by the union's constitution or past practice.

The Board ordered the grievors reinstated into active membership and the withdrawal cards rescinded.

The complainant, a machine repairman, alleged that his employer engaged in a campaign of harassment and improper discipline in reprisal for his filing of a health and safety complaint under The Employees' Health and Safety Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the complainant's initial refusal to work was not based on a reasonable belief that the workplace was unsafe, but rather on a dispute over which hospital he would be sent to if injured.

The Board concluded that the employer's subsequent disciplinary actions and insistence that the complainant wear mandatory hearing protection were justified by the complainant's flagrant insubordination, erratic attendance, and refusal to comply with safety rules.

The complaint was dismissed as being entirely without merit.

The applicant employees applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union objected that the application was untimely because a conciliation officer had been appointed under the local agreement.

The Board found the application was timely with respect to the provincial agreement for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector.

The Board also determined that recent amendments to the Labour Relations Act extended the union's bargaining rights province-wide by operation of law, and amended the bargaining unit accordingly.

A representation vote was ordered.

During a union certification process, a dispute arose regarding the eligibility of four employees to cast ballots in a representation vote.

The union argued that the 'seven week rule' should be applied to determine full-time or part-time status on both the date the vote was ordered and the date it was taken, while the employer argued it should only be applied as of the application date.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the seven week rule must be applied on both the date the vote was ordered and the date it was taken to ensure the vote reflects the wishes of employees with a direct interest.

The Board also dismissed a complaint regarding the Returning Officer temporarily closing the poll and securing the ballot box to seek instructions.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of food service employees.

The parties disputed the geographic scope of the unit.

The union requested a municipal description, while the employer requested a description limited to the specific client location (General Motors plants).

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that, consistent with its normal practice where an employer has only one location in a municipality, the bargaining unit should be defined by reference to the municipality to protect the stability of bargaining rights.

A dissenting member would have restricted the unit to the client location.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing it was not bound by any collective agreement with the applicant.

The Board found that in November 1974, the respondent's site supervisor signed a collective agreement with the union.

Although the supervisor lacked actual authority to bind the respondent, he had apparent authority.

Furthermore, the respondent's subsequent conduct over three years—hiring union carpenters, paying union wages, and making required remittances—constituted ratification of the agreement.

The Board concluded the respondent was bound by the provincial collective agreement and remained seized of the grievance.

The Christian Labour Association of Canada applied for certification for a bargaining unit of employees of the Chatham Horticulture Society.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the employees were employed in horticulture by an employer whose primary business is horticulture, falling under the exclusion in section 2(c) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the primary business of the Society is horticulture and that the employees in question spend the major portion of their time in the preparation, planting, and maintenance of gardens.

The Board concluded that the employees fall within the section 2(c) exclusion and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer violated the duty to bargain in good faith under section 14 of the Labour Relations Act by engaging in surface bargaining.

The union argued that the employer's refusal to offer wage increases or agree to union security, combined with pre-negotiation anti-union conduct, demonstrated an intention to avoid reaching a collective agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer engaged in hard bargaining rather than surface bargaining.

The Board noted that the employer provided financial justification for its wage position and that the union's ongoing boycott of the employer's restaurant contributed to the bargaining impasse.

The applicant union applied for certification for a unit of employees at VS Services Ltd. The Board found the applicant to be a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, noting its history following a merger.

The parties agreed to a bargaining unit that excluded part-time employees and students.

The majority of the Board accepted this agreement and ordered a certificate to issue.

Board Member Hodges dissented, arguing that the Board's policy should not automatically exclude part-time employees and students when there is no history of employing them, and would have rejected the parties' agreement to exclude those categories.

The applicant hospital sought a determination under section 95(2) of the Labour Relations Act as to whether a registered nurse exercised managerial functions and was therefore excluded from the definition of 'employee'.

The nurse served as In-Service Co-ordinator, Staff Health Nurse, and Infection Control Officer.

The Board found that she did not supervise employees, make effective recommendations regarding employment conditions, or exercise independent decision-making authority in policy matters.

The Board concluded that her duties reflected her professional training rather than managerial authority, and declared her an employee for the purposes of the Act.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties agreed to a bargaining unit that excluded part-time employees and students, despite the employer having no history of hiring part-time employees.

The majority of the Board accepted the agreed-upon bargaining unit and granted the certificate, finding that more than fifty-five percent of the employees were members of the union.

A dissenting Board member argued that the Board's policy should not exclude non-existent categories of employees, as it pre-determines the bargaining rights of future hires, and would have included all employees in the unit.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint regarding an employer's campaign letter distributed prior to a representation vote.

The vote resulted in a 60-60 tie.

The union alleged the letter violated a prior settlement agreement prohibiting communications indicating victory or defeat in a previous discharge complaint, thereby constituting undue influence under section 56 of the Labour Relations Act.

The majority of the Board dismissed the application and complaint, finding the employer's letter did not breach the settlement agreement and fell within the parameters of acceptable employer response to union propaganda.

A six-month bar on further certification applications was imposed.

One Board member dissented, arguing the letter breached the settlement and warranted a second vote.

The union applied for certification of employees at Family Services of Hamilton-Wentworth Inc. The parties disputed whether three employees who also served on the employer's Board of Directors should be excluded from the bargaining unit under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act for exercising managerial functions or acting in a confidential capacity.

The Board found that while the Board of Directors collectively exercises managerial functions, the employee-directors do not exercise independent managerial authority in their secondary role as directors, nor do they have regular, material involvement in confidential labour relations matters.

The Board concluded that the employee-directors are properly included in the bargaining unit.

Following the sale of a business and the intermingling of unionized and non-unionized employees, the Board ordered a representation vote.

The union won the vote.

The successor employer argued the vote should be set aside due to union propaganda and that, regardless of the vote, the predecessor's collective agreement should be declared no longer binding because it was unsuitable for the new operation and should not apply to non-unionized transferred employees.

The Board upheld the vote and held that under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act, the collective agreement continues in force and applies to all employees falling within the scope of the bargaining unit, including those transferred from the successor's other operations.

The employer's request to terminate the collective agreement was dismissed.

The union applied under section 82 of The Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 1975 for a determination of whether several persons employed by the college were employees within the meaning of the Act and, if so, in which bargaining unit they belonged.

The Board examined the duties and responsibilities of seven positions.

It found that the Programmer-Analyst, Community Program Co-ordinators, Manager Evening Programs, and Media Specialist were employees in the support staff bargaining unit.

The Board excluded the Student Activities Co-ordinator and the Manager Client Services from the bargaining units by reason of their managerial duties and responsibilities.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of all employees in N.D.P. Constituency offices in Ontario, naming the Province of Ontario Board of Internal Economy as the employer.

The Board applied the criteria for determining employer status and found that the individual Members of the Legislative Assembly exercise complete direction and control over the employees, including hiring, firing, and setting conditions of employment.

The Board of Internal Economy acts merely as a paymaster allocating funds.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the individual Members, not the Board of Internal Economy, are the employers.

The application for certification was dismissed.

In an application for certification, a dispute arose regarding the eligibility of three individuals to cast ballots in a representation vote.

The Board ruled that an employee who had been temporarily transferred into the bargaining unit but returned to her original unit before the vote was ineligible to vote.

Conversely, an employee who had been absent due to illness for an extended period but maintained an employment relationship and received benefits was deemed eligible to vote.

The Board directed that the eligible ballots be counted.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of a private sector employer.

The respondent employer objected on two grounds: that the union's constitution only permitted public sector members, and that membership cards signed on a Sunday were void under the Lord's Day Act.

The Board dismissed both objections, finding that the union had an established practice of admitting private sector employees, and that signing a union membership card does not constitute a business transaction regulated by the Lord's Day Act.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.