K. Davies

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by issuing a written reprimand to a union executive member.

The member had visited a volunteer's home to lobby against a city committee's decision to replace a bargaining unit position with volunteers.

The employer argued the discipline was for a breach of the duty of fidelity, not anti-union animus.

The Board found the member's actions were protected union activities and that the discipline intentionally interfered with the administration of the trade union.

The Board ordered the discipline rescinded.

The applicant filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer contravened section 67 of the Labour Relations Act by issuing a one-day suspension.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to inquire into the complaint, finding that the dispute primarily concerned work practices and regulations rather than the exercise of statutory rights.

Noting that the parties had an established collective bargaining relationship and that an arbitrator had broader jurisdiction to resolve the issues under the collective agreement, the Board deferred the matter to arbitration and adjourned the application sine die.

The applicant trade union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer's reorganization of its workforce shortly after certification breached the Labour Relations Act.

The employer raised several preliminary procedural issues, seeking an adjournment pending a section 108(2) employee status determination, dismissal for lack of a prima facie case, dismissal for want of particulars, and an order that the union proceed first with its evidence.

The Board dismissed the motions for adjournment, lack of a prima facie case, and want of particulars.

A majority of the Board ordered the employer to proceed first with its evidence, finding that the core allegations attracted the reverse onus provisions of section 91(5) and that the employer had peculiar knowledge of the circumstances.

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 union organizing activities.

The responding party employer contended that the employee was discharged for stealing cigarettes.

The majority of the Board dismissed the application, finding that the potential harm to the employer of reinstating an employee discharged for theft outweighed the financial harm to the employee and the alleged chilling effect on the union's organizing drive, particularly given the delay in bringing the application.

A dissenting Board member would have granted the interim reinstatement.

The applicant trade union filed a second application for certification after withdrawing its first application to avoid a potential representation vote due to a dispute over the inclusion of three employees.

The responding employer argued this was a manipulation of the Board's processes and requested the Board impose a bar on the application or order a representation vote.

The Board declined to impose a bar, finding no special or extreme circumstances, and refused to order a vote, noting that the union's actions were not improper and any limitation on objecting employees resulted from the operation of the Labour Relations Act, not the union's conduct.

An interim certificate was issued.

The Canadian Paperworkers Union applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for consent to continue its supervision and control over four local unions for a further twelve months under section 84 of the Labour Relations Act.

The local unions opposed the application, arguing the trusteeship was imposed in bad faith and that the locals no longer held bargaining rights.

The Board found it had jurisdiction and granted the continuation, noting that the trustee had been unable to complete his functions due to the locals' resistance and that the underlying dispute over assets would ultimately be resolved by the courts.

The respondent employer requested an adjournment of the proceedings pending the disposition of an application for judicial review of a related Board decision.

The applicant unions opposed the request.

The Board denied the adjournment, finding that the respondent failed to establish that the balance of convenience favoured an adjournment or that it would suffer substantial irreparable prejudice if the matter proceeded.

The Board directed the Registrar to schedule the applications for hearing.

The Board previously directed the respondent to reinstate the complainant and compensate him for his losses.

The parties were unable to resolve the amount of compensation, specifically whether the complainant satisfied his obligation to mitigate his losses.

The Board found that the complainant made reasonable efforts to mitigate his losses by searching for jobs, registering with Manpower Temporary Services, and contacting numerous firms.

The respondent was directed to fully compensate the complainant for his losses, with interest.

The applicant applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

A representation vote was held, resulting in a tie.

The employer requested that an employee who was absent on the day of the vote be permitted to vote by proxy, by mail, or upon returning to work.

The Board denied the request, noting that the employer had agreed to the vote date and had signed a consent and waiver form immediately after the vote, agreeing to an immediate count and waiving any objections to the regularity of the balloting.

As not more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union, the application was dismissed.

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 complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer violated the Labour Relations Act by discharging one employee, demoting another, and engaging in anti-union communications during an organizing campaign.

The employer argued that the discharge was solely due to the employee's unauthorized taking of confidential employee phone numbers for the union's use.

The Board found that the severity of the discharge and the demotion were tainted by anti-union animus, as the employer failed to consider mitigating factors and used the incidents to deliver anti-union messages.

The Board also held that the employer's statements during mandatory employee meetings crossed the line from protected free speech into undue influence by linking unionization with job losses.

The complaint was allowed in part, with reinstatement ordered for the affected employees and a posting of a notice to employees.

In a construction industry certification application, the applicant requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

Because no employees were at work on the terminal date, applying the Board's customary dual-date voter eligibility rules would result in no eligible voters.

The Board held a hearing to determine the appropriate voter eligibility date.

The Board departed from its traditional practice, ruling that in pre-hearing construction applications, voter eligibility will be determined solely based on those at work in the voting constituency on the application date, to reflect the transient nature of the construction workforce and reduce the potential for gerrymandering.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit consisting of all employees of the respondent, including both warehouse and office/clerical staff.

The respondent employer and objecting employees argued that office and clerical staff should be placed in a separate bargaining unit, relying on historical Board policy.

The Board rejected the argument that exceptional circumstances were required to combine the groups, noting that modern workplaces have evolved.

Applying the community of interest test, the Board found that the employees shared common hours, benefits, wage determination methods, and frequently transferred between office and warehouse roles.

The Board concluded that the all-employee unit was appropriate and certified the applicant.

The applicant sought to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The Board found that the petition in support of the termination application was not voluntary.

The Board noted that a prior petition had been circulated with management's knowledge and involvement, and that the union had originally been certified under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act due to egregious employer unfair labour practices.

Given the lingering effects of the employer's conduct and the circumstances surrounding the petitions, the termination application was dismissed.

The complainant filed a reprisal complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The day before the scheduled hearing, the complainant's counsel requested an adjournment, citing a lack of disclosure from the Ministry of Labour.

The respondent opposed the request.

The complainant failed to attend the hearing.

The Board denied the adjournment request, noting that labour relations matters must proceed expeditiously and the complainant had not demonstrated reasonable efforts to prepare or obtain evidence.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the complaint.

The union sought to withdraw its certification application and related unfair labour practice complaint.

The respondent employer and objecting employees opposed the withdrawal, arguing the certification application should be dismissed with a bar on future applications under s. 105(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act, and the complaint dismissed with prejudice.

The Board allowed the union to withdraw the complaint without prejudice and dismissed the certification application without imposing a bar, finding no circumstances warranting a departure from its usual practice of not imposing a bar absent a representation vote or a series of unsuccessful applications.

The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto purchased Carefree Lodge, a home for the aged, from the CR Vint Foundation.

Following the purchase, Metro integrated the facility into its existing network of homes and intermingled the former Vint employees with its own employees.

A conflict arose between the Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA), which represented a small unit of nurses at the predecessor facility, and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), which represented all Metro employees, including nurses, under a broader collective agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that an intermingling of employees had occurred under section 63(6) of the Labour Relations Act.

To avoid undue fragmentation and promote rational collective bargaining, the Board terminated ONA's bargaining rights and declared that the nurses at Carefree Lodge would be covered by the CUPE all-employee collective agreement.

ONA's related unfair labour practice complaint was dismissed.

The respondent hospital requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision that found a bargaining unit comprised only of registered or graduate nursing assistants to be appropriate.

The respondent argued the Board placed undue emphasis on facilitating access to collective bargaining and should hear from other stakeholders.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no new evidence or arguments that could not have been raised previously, and noting that the respondent had full opportunity to address the issue during the original hearing.

A dissenting Board member would have granted the reconsideration request given the significant policy implications for the hospital sector.

The applicant union sought certification for employees of the respondent's Airline Services Division.

An employee sought to file a petition objecting to certification, but delivered it to the wrong office, missing the terminal date.

The Board declined to extend the terminal date, finding its notices clear.

The union had mailed its original membership cards to the Board, but they were lost in transit.

The Board accepted photocopies of the cards as the best available evidence, satisfied they were lost through no fault of the union.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit should be restricted to the specific operating division rather than municipal-wide, given the employer's history of division-based collective bargaining.

Interim certification was granted.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated the statutory freeze provisions of section 81 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to grant interval wage increases to bargaining unit employees in 1990 and 1991.

The employer did not attend the hearing.

The Board found that the employer had an established pattern of granting automatic wage increases at intervals during the calendar year, which created a reasonable expectation among employees.

The Board held that the failure to pay these increases during the statutory freeze period constituted a breach of section 81, and ordered the employer to implement the wage increases forthwith.

One Board member dissented, citing the union's delay in bringing the complaint.