K. Davies

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.

The complainant, a registered nurse, filed a complaint alleging that his union breached its duty of fair representation and engaged in intimidation and coercion when it settled his termination grievance prior to arbitration.

The complainant had been terminated after refusing to undergo a psychiatric assessment following a dispute over scheduling and pay.

The union and the hospital reached a settlement which the complainant signed, but he later sought to repudiate it, claiming he was pressured.

The Board dismissed the complaint without a full hearing, finding that the union's advice regarding the merits of the grievance, the risks of arbitration, and the benefits of settlement did not constitute arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct, nor did it amount to intimidation.

Following a decision finding the respondents liable for violations of the Labour Relations Act, the respondents requested a re-attendance to address the impact of an Employment Standards award on the Board's compensation order, and to amend the wording of the Notice to Employees.

The Board found the request regarding compensation premature, as the parties had not yet attempted to resolve the quantum of damages themselves.

The Board agreed to amend the Notice to Employees to accurately reflect the specific remedy granted in the decision.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a unit of construction labourers employed by the respondent.

The respondent requested a hearing, arguing it was not actively engaged in the construction industry and that the project was of short duration.

The Board disposed of the application without a hearing, finding that the respondent's admissions in its reply established it was engaged in construction activities.

The Board amended the geographic description of the bargaining unit to reflect the actual location of the project in a 'white area' and issued certificates to the applicant.

In an application for certification, the applicant union requested that the Board direct the respondent employer to post notices at seventeen different work sites or, alternatively, supply employee addresses for service by mail.

The Board, following its practice for security guards with irregular work patterns or multiple sites, directed the employer to provide a list of employee addresses so that notice of the application could be mailed directly to the affected employees.

The terminal date for the application was extended accordingly.

A group of employees applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union challenged the voluntariness of the petition, arguing that three of the four employees who circulated it held positions close to management, which could have unduly influenced the signatories.

The Board found no evidence of actual employer involvement or that employees perceived the circulators as acting on behalf of management.

Despite some inconsistencies in the circulators' testimony, the Board concluded the petition represented the voluntary wishes of the employees and directed a representation vote.

The union filed complaints alleging that the employer failed to bargain in good faith, interfered with the union's representation rights, and engaged in an unlawful lock-out by transferring work to a related, unorganized entity.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer breached the Labour Relations Act by failing to send an informed committee to negotiations, failing to disclose its intention to move work, bargaining directly with employees, and locking out employees to undermine the union.

The Board ordered the employer to cease and desist, return the transferred work, compensate employees for lost wages, and provide the union with employee addresses.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated the statutory freeze by changing its policy on credit card tip vouchers and that it terminated a key union organizer due to anti-union animus.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's instruction regarding credit card vouchers did not violate the statutory freeze, as servers never had a right or privilege to include gratuities in the top box of the voucher.

Furthermore, the Board concluded that the employee was discharged solely because he dishonestly altered a customer's credit card voucher to increase his tip, and not because of his union activities.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant, an employee association, applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held a hearing to determine whether the applicant was a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board reviewed the steps taken to form the association, including the adoption of a constitution and the election of officers, and concluded that the applicant was a viable organization formed for the purpose of representing employees in labour relations.

Finding that more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant, the Board granted the application and issued a certificate.

The applicant filed an application for a declaration terminating the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union argued the application was untimely because a collective agreement, executed after the application was filed, had a retroactive duration clause that covered the date of the application.

The Board held that the timeliness of a termination application is determined at the time it is filed.

A collective agreement signed subsequent to the application cannot retroactively render it untimely.

The application was found to be timely and a representation vote was directed.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees applied under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of the Hamilton-Wentworth Roman Catholic Separate School Board Professional Staff Association following a merger.

A group of audio-visual technicians objected, requesting to be carved out of the bargaining unit.

The Board granted the successor rights declaration, finding that a valid merger had occurred.

The Board dismissed the employees' request, holding that section 62 does not grant the Board jurisdiction to amend the composition of a bargaining unit, which must be acquired intact by the successor union.

The complainant filed an unfair labour practice complaint against his union.

In an earlier decision, the Board dismissed most of the complaint but remained seized of the issue regarding the union's publication of a letter retracting its decision to bar the complainant from holding union office.

The union subsequently posted the retraction letter.

The complainant then sought to expand the proceeding to litigate whether the initial decision to bar him from office violated the Labour Relations Act.

The Board declined to inquire into the matter, noting that the penalty had been fully retracted and that litigating a moot issue solely to obtain a declaration of a breach would not serve a useful labour relations purpose.

The remaining aspect of the complaint was dismissed.

The employer filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the union bargained in bad faith by failing to correct the employer's mistaken assumption that a cost-of-living allowance (COLA) freeze continued into the new collective agreement.

The employer argued the union knew of the mistake and capitalized on it.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding no misrepresentation by the union.

The Board held that the union was entitled to expect the employer to be familiar with the terms of the collective agreement and had no obligation to question the employer's monetary offer.

The applicant trade union sought certification for a bargaining unit consisting of occasional teachers and supply instructors employed by the respondent school boards.

The Board considered whether supply instructors, who are unqualified persons appointed in emergencies, share a sufficient community of interest with occasional teachers to be included in the same unit.

Noting the evolution of collective bargaining practice and the functional similarities between the two groups, the Board found the proposed combined bargaining units to be appropriate and directed that certificates issue to the applicant.

The applicant union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking exclusive assignment of all heavy equipment floating work, which was currently shared with the respondent union.

The Board first denied the applicant's request to introduce evidence of area practice and certain documents due to its failure to comply with the Board's Rules and Practice Note regarding timely disclosure.

On the merits, the Board considered various criteria including collective bargaining relationships, economy and efficiency, employer practice, employer preference, job loss, and delay.

While economy and efficiency slightly favoured the applicant, the employer's long-standing practice of sharing the work, its preference to maintain the negotiated status quo, potential job loss for the respondent union, and the applicant's delay in bringing the complaint weighed heavily against altering the assignment.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification for employees of the respondent cleaning contractor.

The employer argued that the bargaining unit should be limited to a specific street location, while the union sought a municipal-wide unit.

The Board applied its usual practice and granted a municipal-wide unit, finding no compelling reason to depart from it despite the employer being in the contract cleaning industry.

The Board also dismissed the employer's allegations that the union intimidated employees or misrepresented job security, finding no prima facie case of a section 70 violation.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.