J. Sarra

The applicant union sought certification for a unit of editorial employees of the respondent's community newspapers.

The parties agreed on a department-wide unit but disputed its geographic scope.

The applicant proposed a broad unit covering multiple regional municipalities, while the respondent argued for separate units for each community newspaper based on municipal boundaries.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employees shared a strong community of interest due to centralized administration, common corporate policies, shared resources, and cross-publication promotional routes.

The Board concluded that the comprehensive unit sought by the applicant was viable, would not create labour relations difficulties, and did not impede employee access to collective bargaining.

The Board determined the appropriate geographic scope to include Metropolitan Toronto, several regional municipalities, and the Township of West Guillimbury.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The parties disputed the inclusion of several employees in the bargaining unit, specifically whether they exercised managerial functions or performed bargaining unit work on the date of application.

The Board found that one employee was properly included, while three others were excluded due to exercising managerial functions or not performing bargaining unit work.

The Board also announced a policy shift, eliminating the use of a 'representative period' to determine employee status in construction industry certifications, instead focusing strictly on the work performed on the date of application.

Finding that the union had more than 55% support among the eligible employees, the Board granted the certification.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the statutory freeze period under section 79 of the Labour Relations Act by unilaterally opening its retail store on Sundays.

The store had never previously been open on Sundays.

The employer argued it was responding to market pressures from competitors and that Sunday shifts were strictly voluntary.

The Board found that while the employer has the right to manage its operations and respond to market pressures, opening on Sundays was not "business as usual" given the unique legal and social history of Sunday as a non-working day.

The Board concluded the employer breached the statutory freeze but declined to order remedial relief.

The applicant union sought certification for crews on commercial fishing boats operating on Lake Erie.

The respondent boat owners raised preliminary objections, arguing that fishing crews are excluded from the Ontario Labour Relations Act as persons employed in 'hunting or trapping' under section 2(b), and alternatively, that labour relations in the fishing industry fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction pursuant to the 'Navigation and Shipping' or 'Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries' powers of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed both objections.

The Board held that fishing is distinct from hunting and trapping, and that the intra-provincial commercial fishing operations are not integral to the federal powers over navigation or the preservation of fisheries as a natural resource.

Consequently, the Board asserted jurisdiction to hear the certification applications.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties disputed the bargaining unit description, specifically whether students employed in a co-operative training program should be excluded from the full-time unit.

The Board reviewed its practice of excluding such students due to their lack of long-term commitment and different terms and conditions of employment compared to permanent full-time employees.

The Board concluded that the student in question lacked a community of interest with the full-time employees and ordered that students in co-operative training programs be excluded from the bargaining unit.

A Board Officer was appointed to inquire into the duties of a disputed supervisory position.

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

The Board required the applicant to prove its status as a trade union because its name differed slightly from the entity previously found to be a trade union, due to a merger of its parent international unions.

The majority of the Board held that the applicant could not rely on section 105 of the Labour Relations Act for prima facie proof of status because its name was not identical to the previously recognized entity.

However, upon reviewing the evidence, the Board found that despite the merger and the resulting change in its legal name, the applicant continued to operate with the same constitution, officers, and structure, and was therefore the same organization.

The Board concluded the applicant was a trade union within the meaning of the Act and issued an interim certificate pending the resolution of the bargaining unit composition.

The applicant union filed multiple applications for certification, and pre-hearing representation votes were held.

At the initial hearing, the respondents requested a stay of proceedings, arguing that labour relations in fisheries fall under federal jurisdiction and that a constitutional challenge was pending in the courts.

The Board declined to stay the proceedings, affirming its jurisdiction to determine its own constitutional jurisdiction in the first instance.

The Board also declined the union's request to require notice to the Attorneys General, distinguishing between Charter challenges, where notice is required, and division of powers cases, where the Board is merely determining its threshold jurisdiction.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the respondent hospital and the Ontario Hospital Association, alleging breaches of the duty to bargain in good faith and interference with statutory rights regarding the discontinuance of extended tours.

The respondents raised several preliminary objections, including that the complaint failed to disclose a prima facie case, that the Board should defer to arbitration, that the complaint lacked particularity, and that it was untimely.

The Board dismissed all preliminary objections, finding that the complaint raised complex issues of law and policy that required a full hearing on the merits, and that the issues transcended the collective agreement such that deferral to arbitration was inappropriate.