Judith McCormack

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act that it was the successor to the bargaining rights of Local 414 with respect to a bargaining unit employed by the responding party.

The International union opposed the application, arguing that it held the bargaining rights, that the disaffiliation of Local 414 was flawed, and that the formation of the new national union and its merger with the USWA were invalid.

The Board found that Local 414 held the bargaining rights, that the disaffiliation and subsequent merger were completed in substantial compliance with the relevant constitutions, and that the new organization was a trade union.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and declared the applicant to be the successor.

The applicant union sought interim relief to reinstate an employee acting as an in-house organizer who was terminated during an organizing campaign.

The employer alleged the employee was terminated for providing a false alibi for a thief.

The Board granted the interim relief, ordering the organizer returned to work without compensation pending an expedited hearing on the merits.

In this concurring decision, Board Member Ronson agreed with the reinstatement, noting the minimal risk of the organizer becoming involved in theft during the short period before the hearing, while acknowledging the employer's zero-tolerance policy for theft.

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 his involvement in a union organizing drive.

The responding employer claimed the employee was discharged for covering up a theft.

In its first decision interpreting the new interim relief power, the Board established a test requiring an arguable case on the merits and a balancing of the harm to both parties.

Finding that the discharge of a union organizer has a severe chilling effect on an organizing campaign that cannot easily be remedied later, the Board concluded the balance of harm favoured the applicant.

The Board ordered the employee's interim reinstatement pending the final disposition of the unfair labour practice complaint, but denied the request for interim compensation.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer discharged an employee, Tom Robinson, for his union organizing activities, contrary to the Labour Relations Act.

The employer claimed the discharge was for cause due to absenteeism, tardiness, and a machine malfunction incident.

Applying the reverse onus under section 91(5) of the Act, the majority of the Board found that while the employee had a poor record, the employer's reasons were tainted by anti-union animus, evidenced by artificial disciplinary records and knowledge of his union activities.

The Board ordered the employee reinstated with compensation.

A dissenting board member would have dismissed the complaint, finding no anti-union motivation.

The respondent employer requested that the Board revoke its earlier certification decision and issue a new one after reviewing late-filed sample signatures.

The Board noted that while sample signatures are an important safeguard, expedition is crucial in labour relations matters.

The signatures were filed 19 days after the terminal date.

The Board declined to reconsider its decision, emphasizing the need for timely processing of certification applications.

The applicant employer applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the union failed to give notice to bargain within sixty days following certification.

The union explained the delay was due to staffing difficulties at its regional office and that notice was served shortly after the application was filed.

The Board dismissed the application, finding the delay was not lengthy, resulted from inadvertence rather than an intention to sleep on rights, and did not cause prejudice to the employer.

During a union certification campaign, the respondent employer alleged that an employee did not pay the required one dollar for union membership, claiming a union organizer paid it instead.

The employee testified she paid the dollar, but admitted to making prior inconsistent statements suggesting she had not.

The Board declined to rely on the prior inconsistent statements as evidence of the truth of their contents, finding them unreliable and noting the general legal rule against such reliance.

With no affirmative evidence that the dollar was not paid, the Board dismissed the non-pay allegation.

The Ministry of Health revoked the license of Saint Elizabeth Nursing Home and took over its operation under the Health Facilities Special Orders Act.

The Ministry subsequently awarded a portion of the nursing home's licensed beds to Shalom Village through a request for proposals process.

The applicant union argued that this constituted a transfer of an undertaking from the Crown to Shalom Village under the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the license was the essence of the nursing home business and that its transfer, along with the transfer of residents, constituted a transfer of part of an undertaking from the Crown.

A declaration of successor rights was issued.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and unfair labour practice complaints against the respondent employer, alleging interference during an organizing campaign at its Peterborough plant.

The employer engaged in a series of actions including laying off employees, demoting union supporters, increasing surveillance of the primary union organizer, and using a worker committee to identify and discredit union supporters.

The Board found that the employer's actions violated sections 65, 67, and 71 of the Labour Relations Act.

Concluding that the employer's contraventions created a chilling effect such that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained in a representation vote, and finding that the union had adequate membership support for collective bargaining, the Board granted certification pursuant to section 8 of the Act.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer frustrated the grievance and arbitration process.

Following a settlement and an arbitration award ordering the reinstatement of a discharged truck driver, the employer laid off the driver, citing insurance restrictions.

The Board found that the employer reported the driver's past accidents to its insurer specifically to generate insurance restrictions and insulate itself from the grievance process.

The Board held that this conduct demonstrated an unacceptable disregard for the grievance and arbitration procedure, violating section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by interfering with the union's administration of the collective agreement.

The complainants filed a complaint under section 85(2) of the Labour Relations Act alleging that a financial statement furnished by the respondent union official was inadequate.

At the hearing, the respondent argued the matter had been settled.

The Board found that the complainants' former counsel and the respondent's counsel had reached a binding oral settlement agreement, which the complainants later attempted to repudiate.

Emphasizing the importance of settlements in labour relations, the Board exercised its discretion to decline to inquire further into the complaint and dismissed it.

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

The union argued that the employer failed to make reasonable or expeditious efforts to conclude an agreement and adopted uncompromising bargaining positions without reasonable justification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's bargaining approach, which included a massive volume of proposals, concessionary demands, and a confusing format, amounted to 'busy work' bargaining that hindered progress.

Furthermore, the employer's final offer was uncompromising and its financial justification was incomplete and unpersuasive.

The Board directed the settlement of the first contract by arbitration.

A partial dissent was filed regarding a preliminary ruling on the late filing of the employer's reply.

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

The respondent disputed the employment status of the individuals on the lists and requested the Board defer the vote until a hearing could be held.

The Board declined to depart from its normal practice of directing a vote and deferring contentious issues until after the vote.

A pre-hearing representation vote was directed, with the ballot box to be sealed and disputed ballots segregated pending a hearing on the outstanding issues.

The applicant union requested a bench warrant for the arrest of a witness who failed to appear at a continuation of a grievance referral hearing.

The witness had been subpoenaed for an earlier date, which was adjourned sine die with an oral direction to re-attend on subsequent dates.

Although the Board found the witness was aware of his obligation to attend, it declined to issue the warrant, noting that the technical foundation for a warrant is doubtful when a hearing is adjourned sine die without a specific continuation date.

The request for a warrant was dismissed.

The complainant, a banquet waitress discharged for theft, alleged that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union had referred her grievance to expedited arbitration one day late, leading to a jurisdictional objection by the employer.

The union subsequently withdrew the expedited referral to pursue a three-person arbitration board, but the Divisional Court ultimately prohibited the board from hearing the grievance.

The complainant also rejected a settlement offer against the union's advice.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union's strategic decisions, including its interpretation of time limits and its advice to accept the settlement, were reasonable and not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union violated section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to refer him to a job as a mason tender.

The union's hiring hall system referred members based on their position on the out-of-work list and their listed skills.

The complainant was not listed as a mason tender and had not requested to be listed as such.

The Board found that the union's referral system was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant and several other professors filed complaints alleging that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 76 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act.

The complaints arose from an ongoing internal political dispute within the local union.

The complainants alleged that the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith by settling compensation issues arising from workload arbitration awards without their consent, by entering into a consent award that restricted who could act as a union steward during grievance meetings, and by negotiating changes to the collective agreement regarding union representation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaints, finding that the union had the legal authority to settle grievances and workload complaints without the individual grievors' consent.

The Board concluded that the union's decisions were based on reasonable grounds, were not improperly motivated, and were a legitimate exercise of its responsibility to manage the grievance process and administer the collective agreement.

The complainants alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act during the negotiation of a mine closure agreement.

The complainants argued that the negotiating committee should have been elected, members should have been consulted, the agreement should have been subject to a ratification vote, and more pension information should have been provided.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union acted reasonably and in the best interests of the employees given its lack of bargaining power and the company's refusal to allow a ratification vote.

The Board also found no obligation to elect the negotiating committee and concluded that sufficient information had been provided to members.

During an application for certification, the employer and objecting employees raised several allegations of impropriety regarding the union's membership evidence and organizing campaign.

The Board refused to entertain the first set of allegations, finding them untimely under Rule 72 and failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board also refused to hear a second set of allegations because the parties failed to comply with an order to provide specific particulars, including identifying the disputed membership cards.

Finally, the Board denied the employer's request to have a handwriting analyst examine the membership evidence, holding that such access would violate the confidentiality protections under section 111(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

Ultimately, the parties agreed to dismiss the application.

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

The union argued that the employer's refusal to provide wage data and its uncompromising positions on wages and benefits amounted to a failure to recognize the union's bargaining authority.

The Board found that the employer's refusal to move on its wage position, while simultaneously being willing to grant unilateral summer increases, constituted an uncompromising bargaining position adopted without reasonable justification.

The Board directed the settlement of the parties' first contract by arbitration.