K. Davies

The applicant union applied for certification.

During the hearing, it was revealed that the union's main organizer had signed membership cards as a 'witness' without actually observing the employees signing them.

The employer and objecting employees argued this irregularity, along with allegations of intimidation and coercion by the organizer, should invalidate the membership evidence.

The Board found that the organizer's misrepresentation on the cards was innocent and did not undermine the reliability of the evidence.

The Board also dismissed the allegations of intimidation, finding no objective basis for them.

The Board certified the union, with one member dissenting on the reliability of the membership evidence.

During a hearing for a union certification application and unfair labour practice complaint, an issue arose regarding the witnessing of union membership cards.

The union requested the Board not inquire further into the issue.

The Board ruled it would hear evidence on the witnessing of the cards but declined to conduct a broad inquiry into the Form A-4 declaration, citing the need to protect the secrecy of membership evidence under section 113 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also admitted new evidence from objecting employees regarding additional cards, despite late disclosure, but adjourned that portion to allow the union time to prepare.

The United Steelworkers of America applied for certification.

A group of objecting employees filed petitions opposing the union.

The employer argued the application was an abuse of process because it was filed immediately after a previous application was withdrawn.

The Board dismissed the employer's preliminary motion, finding no substantial prejudice.

The Board then assessed the voluntariness of the employee petitions.

Due to inconsistencies in testimony, the open nature of the workplace discussions, and the manner of circulation, the Board found the objectors failed to establish the petitions were voluntary.

As the union had support from more than 55% of the bargaining unit, the Board granted certification.

The applicant union applied for certification to displace the incumbent union representing police officers at the University of Toronto.

The incumbent union and the employer argued that the application was untimely because their collective agreement had been extended pursuant to the Social Contract Act.

The Board held that the Social Contract Act does not explicitly or implicitly protect incumbent bargaining agents from displacement applications during the open periods defined in the Labour Relations Act.

The Board concluded that the application was timely and directed that the ballots cast in the pre-hearing representation vote be counted.

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.

During a lawful strike by cleaning staff employed by Modern Building Cleaning at the Ontario Science Centre, the union alleged that both Modern and the Centre breached the replacement worker provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The Centre's management had picked up garbage, and Modern had introduced new cleaning machinery.

On preliminary objections, the Board dismissed the allegations against the Centre, finding no prima facie case that it acted 'on behalf of' Modern.

The Board also dismissed the allegation that introducing new machinery breached section 73.1, as the statute does not prohibit the use of machinery to perform struck work.

The remaining allegations regarding bargaining unit personnel performing struck work were allowed to proceed, after which the parties settled.

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

The union raised a preliminary objection that the application was untimely because a collective agreement was already in effect.

The employer had made a final offer which the employees rejected twice, leading to a brief strike.

During the strike, the union's Canadian Director exercised his constitutional authority to ratify the employer's final offer on behalf of the union, without employee approval.

The Board found that the employer's offer had not been withdrawn and remained outstanding.

By ratifying the offer, the union and employer achieved a collective agreement, even though the employer had not yet signed the formal document.

Consequently, the termination application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

At the hearing to determine the voluntariness of the petition filed in support of the application, the applicant provided evidence of the petition's preparation but failed to provide evidence regarding its circulation, continuity of carriage, or the circumstances under which each signature was collected.

The union brought a non-suit motion.

The Board granted the non-suit motion and dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet its onus to prove the petition represented the voluntary wishes of the employees.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer, alleging intimidation and the retaliatory layoff of a key union supporter during an organizing drive.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by interrogating and threatening one employee and abruptly laying off another upon discovering the union's presence.

Concluding that the employer's swift and severe actions made it unlikely that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained, the Board granted certification under section 9.2 of the Act.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties initially agreed on the bargaining unit description and waived a formal hearing, after which the count was released showing the union in a certifiable position.

An owner of the responding party subsequently requested a hearing, arguing the manager misunderstood the agreement and seeking to exclude part-time employees and students.

The Board held that parties generally cannot resile from an agreement after the count is released.

Regardless, the Board found the union's proposed unit including both full-time and part-time employees was deemed appropriate under section 6(2.1) of the Labour Relations Act.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant employees applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding union.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the employee petitions filed in support were not voluntary.

The Board concluded that the active involvement of lead hands—who were perceived by employees as linked to management—in originating and circulating the petitions during working hours would likely lead employees to believe the petitions were supported or condoned by management.

A subsequent request for reconsideration was also dismissed, as it raised no new issues or evidence that could not have been presented at the initial hearing.

The applicant union sought a declaration that its bargaining rights bound the responding party, Heritage Green Senior Centre, following the Ministry of Health's takeover and subsequent reallocation of nursing home beds from the revoked license of Saint Elizabeth Nursing Home.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the Ministry's operation of the home constituted a Crown undertaking, and the issuance of a new license to Heritage Green, along with the transfer of residents, constituted a transfer of that undertaking.

The Board further held that valid bargaining rights existed and that intermingling of employees had occurred.

The application was allowed, and the collective agreement was declared to apply as of the date of transfer without the need for a representation vote.

The applicant union sought certification for employees at a single gas bar location in Thunder Bay.

The responding party employer argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should encompass both of its gas bar locations in the municipality to avoid fragmentation.

The Board found that the single location was a viable grouping for collective bargaining and that requiring a multi-location unit might seriously impede access to collective bargaining in an industry that has not traditionally been organized.

A representation vote was ordered for the single-location unit.

One Board Member dissented, arguing that splitting the organization into two groups would cause serious labour relations difficulties.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party security services company.

The parties disagreed on the bargaining unit description, specifically whether it should include 'all employees' or just 'security guards', and whether the geographic scope should be the Regional Municipality of Sudbury or the broader District of Sudbury.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board accepted the union's proposed 'all employee' unit, noting the relaxation of legislative restrictions on security guards.

The Board also accepted the union's geographic scope of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury, finding it to be an appropriate unit that would not generate serious labour relations problems.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The union applied for certification to represent employees at a producer-owned cannery co-operative.

The employer argued the application should be dismissed because the employees were employed in agriculture, or alternatively, that seasonal workers should be excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board held that although the co-operative processed agricultural products, the industrial nature of the canning work and the separate corporate entity meant the employees were not employed in agriculture.

The Board further held that an all-employee bargaining unit, including seasonal workers, was appropriate, as the seasonal workers shared a sufficient community of interest and their inclusion would not cause serious labour relations problems.

A certificate was issued for the all-employee unit.

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.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of employees at the responding party's Barrie operation.

The employer requested a bar or a representation vote, alleging the union manipulated the process by withdrawing an earlier application and refiling to avoid a vote.

The Board found no abuse of process and declined to order a vote.

The employer also argued the bargaining unit should be restricted to its 'Edwards Unit' division.

The Board rejected this, applying its policy of granting municipal-wide certificates without divisional restrictions where only one division operates in the municipality, to protect bargaining rights.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union applied to combine a newly certified bargaining unit of editorial employees in Simcoe County with an existing bargaining unit of editorial employees.

The respondent employer argued that the Board should not remain seized of the matter or should freeze the terms and conditions of employment, to allow the parties to bargain without interference.

The Board rejected the employer's arguments, noting that the statute expressly confers remedial jurisdiction to resolve differences arising from a combination order.

The Board ordered the two bargaining units combined and remained seized to deal with any further remedial relief.

During a hearing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the applicant requested the production of a Pay Equity Report referenced by the responding party's witness.

The responding party objected on the grounds of relevance and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA).

The Board directed the production of the report, finding it potentially relevant to the issues in dispute and noting that section 51 of MFIPPA explicitly preserves the power of tribunals to compel the production of documents.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at General Signal Limited.

The parties agreed that the unit should include both full-time and part-time employees pursuant to section 6(2.1) of the Labour Relations Act, but disagreed on whether summer students should be included.

The employer argued that the omission of summer students from section 6(2.1) meant they should be excluded, while the union argued for their inclusion based on the Board's historical practice of treating part-time employees and summer students in tandem.

The Board found that the statutory amendments favoured broader-based bargaining structures and that a unit comprising full-time employees and summer students was appropriate and viable.

The Board granted the application and certified the union for the proposed unit.