J. Sarra

The union applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that Dutch Boy's acquisition of a lease and fixtures from a former Steinberg supermarket constituted a sale of a business.

Steinberg had closed its store and surrendered its lease, after which the property was sold to a developer.

Dutch Boy later leased the premises and acquired the fixtures.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the transactions did not constitute a sale of Steinberg's business to Dutch Boy, but rather an expansion of Dutch Boy's existing business into the vacant premises.

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 complainants, three employees at a gypsum mine, refused to work after discovering that the mine's fire alarm system did not function during power failures, which were frequent.

The employer implemented a temporary contingency plan, but the complainants felt it was inadequate and continued to refuse work, leading to their suspension.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the complainants had reasonable grounds to believe the workplace was unsafe and that the employer violated section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by disciplining them.

The Board ordered the employer to compensate the complainants for all losses suffered as a result of the suspensions.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by communicating directly with striking employees, closing its manufacturing operations, and advertising for replacement workers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's November letters to individual employees, which offered re-employment and circumvented the union, constituted a failure to bargain in good faith and unlawful interference with the union.

However, the Board dismissed the allegations regarding the closure of the manufacturing operations, finding that the decision was motivated by bona fide business reasons and not anti-union animus.

The Board ordered the employer to cease bargaining directly with employees and to post a notice of its violations.

During a hearing to determine whether the grievor was an employee or an independent contractor, the Ontario Labour Relations Board made several preliminary evidentiary rulings.

The Board conditionally admitted photocopies of computer print-outs, requiring the respondent to produce the originals and the names of the individuals involved.

The Board also ordered the respondent to produce 1987 payroll documents and contracts for both employees and contractors pursuant to a summons duces tecum, finding them arguably relevant to the grievor's employment status.

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 applicant employee association applied for certification.

The intervener union challenged the application, alleging improprieties in the membership evidence and the Form 9 declaration, as well as employer interference.

The Board found that the Form 9 declarant did not make the necessary reasonable inquiries and that the amended Form 9 contained material misrepresentations regarding the collection of membership cards and fees.

Consequently, the Board rejected the Form 9 declarations as improper and unreliable.

Without a valid Form 9, the membership evidence was given no weight, and the application for certification was dismissed.

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 employee applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union argued the application was untimely and that the petition supporting it was not voluntary due to a history of employer unfair labour practices, including layoffs and contracting out, which created a chilling effect.

The majority of the Board found the application timely and the petition voluntary, noting the passage of time since certification and intervening events that could explain a change of heart.

A representation vote was ordered.

A dissenting Board member would have dismissed the application, finding the petition involuntary due to the cumulative chilling effect of the employer's prior violations of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant unions referred a grievance to the Board.

The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the unions had abandoned their bargaining rights due to a lengthy period of inactivity.

The Board found that the unions had not abandoned their bargaining rights in the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector, noting that under the province-wide bargaining provisions of the Labour Relations Act, the failure of an affiliated bargaining agent to administer a provincial agreement locally does not constitute abandonment by the employee bargaining agency.

The preliminary objection was dismissed and the matter was referred for a hearing on the merits.

The applicant union sought declarations under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Masstron Scale Ltd. was a successor employer to Toledo Scale Division and that the two were related businesses under common control.

The respondents conceded the sale and common control but argued against a declaration binding Masstron to the collective agreement, claiming it would extend rather than protect bargaining rights.

The Board interpreted the collective agreement's scope clause in light of the parties' past practice, finding that the union's bargaining rights covered the geographic territory in question.

The Board granted the section 1(4) declaration, finding it necessary to prevent the erosion of existing bargaining rights, and declared Masstron bound by the collective agreement.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer violated the collective agreement by sub-contracting earthworks to a non-union contractor.

The collective agreement prohibited engaging non-union sub-contractors effective August 1, 1987.

The Board found that the sub-contracting of phase 4 work occurred after the effective date and violated the agreement, as the prior arrangements were too tenuous to constitute an engagement before August 1.

The Board remained seized with respect to remedy.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit consisting solely of full-time meat department employees at the respondent's retail food store.

The respondent argued that the appropriate unit should include all full-time store employees to avoid undue fragmentation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the union had an established history of representing meat department employees, satisfying the conditions for a craft unit under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board deemed the meat department unit appropriate and, by agreement of the parties, included full-time deli section employees.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

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

A dispute arose regarding whether the employees of the respondent contractor should be included in a bargaining unit from a related proceeding involving Great Lakes Forest Products Limited.

The Board deferred its decision on whether to consolidate the applications under section 103(3) of the Act until after the pre-hearing representation vote, directing that the vote proceed and the ballot box be sealed.

The applicants sought a declaration under section 58 of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent union no longer represented the employees, alleging that a supervisor was involved in the union's organizing drive and intimidated employees into signing membership cards.

The Board dismissed the application without an inquiry into the merits, finding that the allegations, even if true, did not constitute fraud within the meaning of section 58.

The Board noted that such allegations of employer involvement and intimidation could be filed under other sections of the Act, but would raise concerns of timeliness.

The applicant union applied under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The parties had reached an impasse over the employer's insistence on a clause allowing it to discharge employees without just cause upon payment of severance.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's position was uncompromising and without reasonable justification, as it undermined the fundamental job security typically provided by a collective agreement.

The Board also dismissed the employer's arguments that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights and lacked standing, finding that a valid union merger had occurred.

The Board directed the settlement of the first collective agreement by arbitration.

The applicant employer applied under section 59 of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration terminating the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union had served a notice to bargain but failed to commence negotiations for approximately twelve months, offering no valid explanation other than having forgotten about the bargaining unit.

The Board found that the union had slept on its bargaining rights without reasonable excuse, prejudicing the employees.

The Board ordered a representation vote to determine if the employees still desired to be represented by the union.

The employer filed an unfair labour practice complaint and an application for consent to prosecute the union and its counsel, alleging they misled an arbitrator to obtain an adjournment.

The employer sought to consolidate these matters with earlier complaints filed by the union.

The Board refused consolidation, noting the matters were discrete and consolidation would conflict with the union counsel's role.

The Board then dismissed the employer's complaint and application without a full hearing, finding them to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process designed to harass the union and gain a tactical advantage in other pending matters.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied for certification and requested that the Board alter its normal bargaining unit description by deleting the words 'employed in a nursing capacity' pursuant to section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The union argued this would reduce litigation over whether certain positions fall within the unit.

The Board dismissed the request, holding that section 6(3) is designed to preserve historical craft bargaining patterns, not to extend them.

The Board certified the union for the traditional bargaining unit of nurses employed in a nursing capacity.

The Alliance Employees' Union and the Public Service Alliance of Canada submitted a joint proposal requesting the Board to amend a 1984 certificate to reflect updated managerial and confidential exclusions.

The Board treated the request as an application for reconsideration but dismissed it as unnecessary.

The Board held that once a collective agreement is negotiated, the certificate is spent and supplanted by the agreement's recognition clause.

The parties are free to amend the scope of their collective agreement themselves without Board intervention.