Judith McCormack

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 complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union in 1984 regarding events from 1983.

After initial proceedings and adjournments in 1985, the complainant took no further steps for almost two years.

The respondent union requested that the complaint be dismissed for delay.

The Board declined to entertain the complaint due to the extreme and unexplained delay of almost two years since the last proceeding, bringing the total time elapsed since the events to almost four years.

The applicant employee applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The applicant submitted a petition signed by a sufficient number of employees.

The Board inquired into the voluntariness of the petition.

The applicant, a former supervisor who retained a close relationship with management, circulated the petition.

The Board found that employees would reasonably perceive the applicant as closely associated with management and might fear that management would learn whether they signed.

Given this perception, the unusual lack of discussion before signing, and the applicant's unreliable testimony, the Board concluded the applicant failed to prove the petition represented the voluntary wishes of the employees.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether four individuals were employees.

The respondent employer argued the application should be dismissed without a hearing on the merits because the parties had previously agreed during a certification application that the individuals exercised managerial functions and were excluded from the bargaining unit.

The union contended the agreement was only for the purposes of the count.

The Board found that the prior decision recorded an agreement on employee status, which triggered the Westmount Hospital policy restricting subsequent applications.

The Board declined to go behind the prior decision and dismissed the application.

The complainant, an employee of Camco Inc., was discharged following a workplace altercation with another employee.

The union filed a grievance but ultimately decided not to refer it to arbitration, relying on information volunteered by three employees that supported the other employee's version of events.

The complainant alleged the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the union's investigation was inadequate and perfunctory, particularly given the serious nature of a discharge grievance and the union's failure to interview witnesses identified by the complainant.

The Board concluded the union acted arbitrarily and directed that the grievance be referred to arbitration.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer.

During the organizing campaign, the employer engaged in anti-union communications, laid off union supporters, and assisted in forming an employee association.

The Board found that the employer's actions violated sections 64, 66, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also determined that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained due to the employer's conduct.

Consequently, the Board granted certification under section 8 of the Act and ordered the employer to reinstate the laid-off employees with compensation.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union violated section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to properly pursue his grievance regarding a recall notice and refusing to refer it to arbitration.

The Board found that the union's treatment of the grievance over a period of almost a year and a half was cavalier, marked by unexplained delays, inconsistent information, and consideration of irrelevant factors.

The Board concluded that the union acted arbitrarily and directed it to process the grievance to arbitration.

Six employees applied under section 47 of the Labour Relations Act for an exemption from paying union dues on the basis of their religious convictions.

Three applications were dismissed without a hearing or for non-appearance.

The remaining three applicants, who were born-again Christians, testified that their religious beliefs prevented them from supporting a union.

The Board found that while the applicants were sincerely religious, their opposition to unions was primarily based on secular, social, and economic views rather than their religious beliefs.

The Board concluded that the applicants failed to establish a causal connection between their religious beliefs and their objection to paying dues.

The applications were dismissed.

The union applied for certification.

A group of objecting employees sought to extend the terminal date to file an untimely statement of desire, claiming they misunderstood whether they were included in the bargaining unit.

The Board refused the extension, noting the strict application of terminal dates and that the employees had reasonable notice.

As the union demonstrated over 55% membership support regardless of the remaining disputes over certain managerial exclusions, the Board issued interim certificates and appointed a Board Officer to inquire into the disputed positions.

In an application for certification, the employer sought to exclude approximately one-third of the proposed bargaining unit on the basis of managerial functions, confidential labour relations capacity, or lack of community of interest.

To facilitate the resolution of these unusually broad exclusions and avoid a costly examination process, the Board directed the employer to file a detailed statement of facts and duties for the individuals challenged under section 1(3)(b) of the Act.

The Board also appointed a Board Officer to assist the parties in preparing an agreed statement of facts regarding the community of interest dispute.

The applicant union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the employer transferred the chief union organizer and discharged two other union supporters due to anti-union animus.

The Board found that the employer's actions violated sections 64, 66, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

Concluding that the employer's misconduct created a climate where the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained, and noting the union had adequate membership support, the Board certified the union under section 8 of the Act and ordered the reinstatement of the discharged employees with compensation.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties agreed on a partial description of the bargaining unit but disputed the inclusion of numerous individuals based on managerial or confidential exclusions.

The union established sufficient membership support for certification.

The employer opposed the issuance of an interim certificate, arguing that the breadth of the dispute would make collective bargaining artificial and meaningless.

The Board granted the interim certificate, finding that meaningful bargaining could take place on many issues despite the dispute, and noting that section 6(2) of the Labour Relations Act was designed to prevent prejudice caused by delay in such circumstances.

The applicant referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondents' assignment of certain construction work to another union violated the collective agreement.

The respondents and the other union raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the grievance was essentially a jurisdictional dispute, which ousted the Board's jurisdiction under section 124.

The Board dismissed the objection, holding that while it may defer a section 124 grievance to a jurisdictional dispute proceeding under section 91 or a collective agreement mechanism as a matter of policy, its jurisdiction under section 124 is not ousted.

The Board also ruled that evidence regarding the collective agreement's dispute resolution mechanism was relevant to determining whether it should defer.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The parties disputed the appropriate bargaining unit.

The applicant argued the unit should be restricted to journeymen sheet metal workers and registered apprentices, while the respondent argued it should include all employees performing sheet metal work.

The Board, with one member dissenting, held that given the unique historical and organizational features of the construction industry and the specific legislative requirements attached to the sheet metal trade, the bargaining unit should be restricted to journeymen and registered apprentices.

The applicant union sought certification for a unit of part-time employees of the respondent nursing and rest home.

The parties disputed whether there should be one inclusive bargaining unit or separate units for the nursing home and rest home.

The Board found that while the employees shared a community of interest, the Board's policy of having part-time units 'mirror' full-time units favoured separate units, as the parties had previously agreed to separate units for full-time employees.

The Board ordered separate bargaining units and issued certificates for both.