Judith McCormack

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the City of North York retaliated against it following a successful arbitration award that reinstated an employee discharged for drug offences.

The City initiated a process to contract out garbage collection, froze hiring and purchasing, removed a union representative from a health and safety committee, and the Mayor made numerous public statements attacking the union and threatening privatization.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the City's actions were motivated by anti-union animus and intended to intimidate employees from exercising their right to file grievances.

The Board ordered the City to cease the contracting out process, lift the hiring freeze, reinstate the committee member, and post notices of the violations.

The union applied under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act for declarations that three taxi brokers and their respective associates should be treated as one employer for collective bargaining purposes.

The Board found that the brokers and associates carried on associated or related activities under common control or direction, given their functional integration and mutual economic dependence.

The Board exercised its discretion to issue the declarations and ordered a specific bargaining structure, as agreed upon by most parties, to ensure associates have a formal role in negotiations.

The union applied for certification under the Agricultural Labour Relations Act.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the agriculture industry division was not properly designated because the Chair did not consult the Agricultural Labour Management Advisory Committee.

The Board dismissed the objection, finding no statutory requirement for such consultation.

The Board then considered an allegation regarding a union membership card signed by an intervening employee who subsequently changed her mind and asked for the card back.

The Board held that the initial application for membership was valid and that a subsequent change of heart did not invalidate the card for the purposes of the certification application.

As the union had sufficient membership evidence, a certificate was issued.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the Crown applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to determine five unresolved matters in their negotiation of an essential services agreement under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993.

The Board provided directions on the definition of essential versus emergency services, the arrangement of work hours, and the timing for selecting employees to provide essential services.

The Board declined to make determinations on the extension of non-classified contracts and the cessation of benefits during a strike, finding these issues lacked a sufficient connection to the statutory mandate for essential services agreements.

The applicant union sought certification for employees at a 60-bed retirement home.

The parties disputed whether fifty 'floating' maintenance and housekeeping employees, who serviced twenty-five different homes, should be included in the bargaining unit.

The Board determined that including the floating employees would create serious labour relations problems and administrative difficulties, as they could potentially fall into multiple bargaining units.

The Board excluded the floating employees from the bargaining unit and, finding that more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the unit had applied for membership, granted the certification.

The applicant employer, a cleaning company providing services to a community college, applied for a determination under section 73.2(12) of the Labour Relations Act to use specified replacement workers during an anticipated strike.

The employer argued that replacement workers were necessary to prevent danger to life, health, and safety under section 73.2(3) by maintaining minimum cleaning standards at the college.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that even if the college operated at full capacity, the employer had sufficient managerial personnel available to perform the minimum cleaning necessary to prevent such danger without the need for specified replacement workers.

The applicants sought reconsideration of a Board decision declaring the Steelworkers a successor union.

During the hearing, the responding employer and the Steelworkers moved for early dismissal of the reconsideration application.

The applicants and the UFCW argued the moving parties must first elect whether to call evidence.

The Board held it has discretion to entertain a non-suit or early dismissal motion without requiring an election, and declined to require an election in this case given the need for expedition and cost-sensitivity.

However, the Board dismissed the motion on its merits, finding the moving parties' arguments related to the weight of the evidence rather than a complete lack of evidence.

The applicant employer sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to restrict picketing at one of its stores by striking employees from other locations.

The employer argued the picketing breached the common law and caused undue disruption.

The majority of the Board dismissed the application, finding that the balance of harm favoured the union, given the delay in bringing the application, the imminent conclusion of the main hearing, and the significant impact an interim order would have on the employees' statutory right to picket.

A dissenting member would have granted the interim relief.

The applicant union sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to postpone the hospital's implementation of alternative placement and layoff notices affecting registered practical nurses.

The union alleged the hospital's actions were motivated by anti-union animus and intended to decimate the newly certified bargaining unit during first collective agreement negotiations.

The Board found the union had an arguable case and that the balance of harm favoured granting the interim relief, as the union's position was precarious after three years without a collective agreement.

The Board directed the hospital to restore and maintain the status quo pending the expedited hearing of the main complaint.

The applicant union applied under section 7 of the Labour Relations Act to combine seven separate bargaining units of front-of-house employees at various movie theatres operated by the responding party in Ontario.

The employer opposed the application, arguing that the union should have requested combination at the time of certification and that geographically separate units should remain distinct.

The Board granted the application, finding that combining the units would reduce fragmentation and facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining without causing serious labour relations problems.

A dissenting opinion would have kept the Guelph and Sudbury locations as separate units to allow for more local decision-making.

The applicant union sought a determination under section 73.2(12) of the Labour Relations Act regarding the employer's use of specified replacement workers during a strike at its brewery.

The employer argued that replacement workers were necessary to operate the power plant to prevent danger to life, health, or safety, and to prevent serious deterioration of equipment.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while an engineer was required to monitor the plant even if production ceased, the employer already had two managerial employees capable of safely operating the plant.

The Board concluded that the employer failed to establish that additional specified replacement workers were necessary within the meaning of section 73.2(3).

The application was granted and the employer was prohibited from using the specified replacement workers.

The applicant employer sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to stay a 'bottom line' certification decision pending the issuance of detailed written reasons and the disposition of an application for reconsideration.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the harm to the union and the employees caused by further delay in the certification process significantly outweighed any potential harm to the employer.

The Board emphasized that expedition is critical in labour relations and that staying a decision to allow a party to assess its position for judicial review would undermine the purpose of issuing bottom line decisions.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Board decision dismissing his duty of fair referral complaint against the union.

He requested a certified copy of the Chair's hearing notes to pursue perjury charges against union witnesses, alleged libel, and disputed the Board's findings regarding his breach of a union bylaw.

The Board dismissed the application, holding that adjudicators' notes are personal memory aids protected by deliberative secrecy and public policy.

The Board also clarified that its findings regarding the bylaw were relevant to assessing the union's motivation rather than adjudicating the bylaw breach itself.

The applicant union sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to reinstate two resident superintendents who were discharged during a union organizing campaign.

The Board applied its established test for interim relief, finding that the union had made out an arguable case of an unfair labour practice.

Balancing the harm, the Board concluded that the chilling effect of the discharges on the organizing campaign outweighed the employer's concerns about the employees' continued presence, especially since the employees still resided at the property.

The Board ordered the interim reinstatement of the employees pending the disposition of the main complaint.

The applicant union alleged a violation of the Labour Relations Act, arguing that a change in security contractors at a building constituted a sale of a business under the deemed successorship provisions of section 64.2.

The Board issued a preliminary ruling on whether the new contractor's services fell within the scope of the section.

The majority held that the concierge and access control duties performed by the new contractor were security services related to servicing the premises, and were substantially similar to the services provided by the predecessor, despite the elimination of a dedicated patrol position.

The applicant union sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to reinstate an employee who was allegedly discharged for union organizing activities.

The employer argued the discharge was for reasons unrelated to the union campaign.

The Board applied the test for interim relief, balancing the potential harm to the union's organizing campaign against the potential disruption to the employer's workplace.

Finding that the harm of not granting the order outweighed the harm of granting it, the Board directed the interim reinstatement of the employee pending the final disposition of the unfair labour practice complaint.

During a lawful strike by retail grocery employees, the company closed its struck stores but attempted to remove perishable goods using personnel from its head office and non-struck stores.

The union applied for a declaration that the company used prohibited replacement workers, while the company applied for restrictions on picketing to allow the removal of the goods.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the company violated section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act by using prohibited replacement workers to perform bargaining unit work.

The Board dismissed the company's application for picketing restrictions, finding insufficient evidence that the peaceful picketing caused undue disruption to the company's operations within the meaning of section 11.1.

The applicant unions alleged that the Red Cross and various home care agencies and service providers violated the replacement worker provisions of the Labour Relations Act when clients were reassigned to other agencies during a lawful strike by Red Cross homemakers.

The Board found that the other agencies were not acting on behalf of the Red Cross and were not employers of the striking workers, dismissing the replacement worker complaints.

However, the Board found that the Red Cross violated sections 65, 67(c), and 71 of the Act by making intimidating statements to employees, threatening job loss if they exercised their right to strike.

The company and the union filed cross-applications during an ongoing legal strike.

The union alleged the company violated section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act by using replacement workers, while the company sought restrictions on picketing under section 11.1 to remove perishable inventory.

The Board found the company violated section 73.1 and ordered it to cease and desist and post the decision.

The Board dismissed the company's request for picketing restrictions, finding no undue disruption and noting the company's own conduct, including its use of prohibited replacement workers to pack the products, weighed against exercising discretion in its favour.

The applicant union applied under section 7 of the Labour Relations Act to combine seven separate store bargaining units of the responding party department store into a single bargaining unit.

The parties had a history of centralized bargaining resulting in nearly identical collective agreements.

The employer opposed the combination, arguing it would cause serious labour relations problems and that the existing units were viable.

The Board found that combining the units would reduce fragmentation and facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining without causing serious labour relations problems, given the centralized nature of the employer's operations and the parties' bargaining history.

The application was granted and the units were combined, with one member dissenting.