Jerry Kovacs

In a dissenting opinion regarding an application for certification, Board Member Seville disagreed with the majority's finding that a single-store bargaining unit was inappropriate.

The majority had concluded that the employer's 11 fast-food franchise locations were functionally integrated, particularly regarding the production of baked goods, and that a single-store unit would cause serious labour relations problems.

The dissent argued that the Board lacked sufficient evidence regarding the separate corporate structures of each store and the parent franchisor to properly assess functional integration.

The dissent further contended that the production relationship did not preclude a single-store unit and that requiring an 11-store bargaining unit created an unreasonable impediment to the employees' right to organize.

The union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging bad faith bargaining.

The employer applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights for security guards under the transitional provisions of Bill 7, alleging a conflict of interest because the union also represented cleaners at the same sites.

The Board dismissed the employer's application, finding no conflict of interest as the guards exercised minimal monitorial authority over the cleaners.

The Board granted the union's applications, finding that the employer breached the duty to bargain in good faith by secretly contracting out the security services while pretending to negotiate the issue, and by subsequently refusing to recognize the union's bargaining authority.

The Board directed that the first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

The union applied for certification and complained of unfair labour practices during its organizing campaign.

The employer suspended the union's sole inside organizer for three weeks and reassigned her to a unique shift, alleging she harassed employees.

The Board found the employer's actions were tainted by anti-union animus, violating sections 65, 67, and 71 of the Labour Relations Act.

Concluding that the true wishes of the employees were unlikely to be ascertained due to the employer's conduct, the Board granted certification under section 9.2.

The employer's request for reconsideration based on the new Labour Relations Act, 1995 was dismissed.

The employer applied under sections 1(4) and 64 of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration of related employer status and a finding of a sale of business, which were largely agreed upon by the responding trade unions.

The employer sought to consolidate multiple geographic-specific bargaining units into a single all-employee unit, arguing that an intermingling of employees had occurred following the integration of the acquired businesses.

The Board found that while there was some operational integration and minor personnel movement, it did not constitute the thorough intermingling of employees contemplated by section 64(6) that would necessitate dismantling the existing bargaining structures.

The Board dismissed the employer's request to restructure the bargaining units, concluding that the existing geographic-specific units remained viable and the employer remained bound by the existing collective agreements.

The applicant union sought a declaration under subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that two companies, Tilbury Concrete Transport Inc. and Tilbury Concrete Inc., constituted a single employer.

The union held bargaining rights for the transport company's drivers, but the concrete company recently began employing its own drivers, who were organized by a different union (CUOE).

The Board found that the two companies carried on related activities under common control and direction within a family enterprise.

Although a declaration would disturb the CUOE's existing bargaining rights, the Board exercised its discretion to issue the declaration because the CUOE failed to defend its rights and effectively abandoned them.

The declaration was made retroactive to the companies' incorporation, rendering the CUOE's subsequent certification untimely.

The applicant union (AAHP:O) sought a declaration that the employer properly assigned the work of a newly hired Genetic Counsellor to its bargaining unit.

The responding union (ONA) argued the work belonged exclusively to its nurses' bargaining unit, as nurses had historically performed the work.

The employer and AAHP:O advocated for a composite crew approach, allowing both nurses and non-nurses to perform the role depending on their qualifications.

The Board held that ONA's collective agreement language protecting work normally performed by nurses, combined with the employer's past practice of exclusively using nurses for the role since 1976, outweighed the employer's preference for a multi-disciplinary approach.

The Board ordered the employer to restore the assignment of the work to the ONA bargaining unit.

The applicants filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.

The responding union asserted that the application should be dismissed due to employer initiation, pleading material facts to support its assertion.

The Board found that the union established a prima facie case of employer initiation or coercion.

Relying on section 63(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board directed that the representation vote be deferred until the allegations could be determined at a scheduled hearing.

The responding employers requested that the Board reconsider its decision to issue certificates to the applicant union, arguing that the Board failed to provide sufficient reasons for an earlier decision regarding the employee list.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the employers did not seek to introduce new evidence or make representations they had no prior opportunity to raise.

The Board held that a request for further reasons is not a sufficient ground to reconsider a decision to issue final certificates, and provided brief supplementary reasons explaining its evidentiary findings regarding the employees in question.

The United Steelworkers of America applied for certification.

A group of objecting employees filed petitions opposing the union.

The employer argued the application was an abuse of process because it was filed immediately after a previous application was withdrawn.

The Board dismissed the employer's preliminary motion, finding no substantial prejudice.

The Board then assessed the voluntariness of the employee petitions.

Due to inconsistencies in testimony, the open nature of the workplace discussions, and the manner of circulation, the Board found the objectors failed to establish the petitions were voluntary.

As the union had support from more than 55% of the bargaining unit, the Board granted certification.