Ken Petryshen

The union referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, challenging the discharge of a boilermaker.

The grievor was discharged after leaving the construction site during his shift without obtaining permission or providing a reason to his foreman.

The employer argued that the grievor's conduct warranted discharge, especially given previous warnings about attendance.

The Board found that while the grievor's conduct warranted some discipline, discharge was too severe a penalty given his length of service and the foreman's failure to object when the grievor announced his departure.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 44(9) of the Act to substitute a five-day suspension for the discharge and ordered compensation for lost wages.

A dissenting Board member would have upheld the discharge.

The complainant, a part-time employee, was discharged after refusing to clean an employee washroom, claiming the smell would make him sick.

A grievance was filed and subsequently settled, with the complainant reinstated with seniority but without compensation.

Two months later, the complainant filed a complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) seeking lost earnings.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the OHSA complaint, finding that under section 24(2) of the OHSA, a worker must elect to proceed either before the Board or under the collective agreement.

Having elected to utilize the grievance procedure and having consented to a settlement, the complainant could not relitigate the propriety of his discharge before the Board.

The complainant union filed a complaint alleging contraventions of the Labour Relations Act.

The central issue was whether the union had abandoned its bargaining rights for part-time employees.

Although the original 1974 certificate and successive collective agreements did not explicitly exclude part-time employees, the collective agreement had never been applied to them.

The union had not collected dues from part-time employees or applied seniority, grievance, or health and welfare provisions to them.

The Board found that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights for part-time employees through disuse and failure to assert those rights over many years.

Following a representation vote for full-time and part-time bargaining units, objecting employees challenged the voter eligibility of several individuals.

The Board applied its standard two-pronged eligibility rule, requiring an employee to be in the bargaining unit both on the date the vote is ordered and the date it is taken.

The Board found that temporary employees were eligible, but employees hired after the vote was ordered were not.

Furthermore, employees transferred from the part-time to the full-time unit between the two dates were ineligible to vote in either unit.

The Board upheld the full-time unit vote and certified the union, but directed a new vote for the part-time unit due to the participation of ineligible voters.

The complainant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act regarding two discharge grievances.

The first grievance, related to an illegal strike, was settled by the union without raising a subsequent incident where the complainant spat on a manager.

The Board dismissed this aspect of the complaint, finding the union's decision reasonable.

The second grievance related to the complainant's discharge for the spitting incident.

The union initially refused to file this grievance because it disagreed with the remedy requested by the complainant.

The Board found this initial refusal to be arbitrary and a violation of section 68.

However, because the union subsequently filed and processed the grievance, the Board limited its remedy to a declaration.

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

The Board previously found the two corporate respondents to be related employers.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit, deciding on a single unit for both companies and applying its usual geographic scope for the lumber industry.

The Board found that the employer violated sections 64 and 70 of the Labour Relations Act through a letter and statements made by the president, but concluded these breaches were not so flagrant as to prevent the true wishes of the employees from being ascertained in a representation vote.

The Board ordered remedial measures, including a notice to employees and union access, and directed a representation vote.

In a hearing to determine damages following a successful grievance referral under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, the respondent requested an adjournment pending a judicial review of a related employer decision.

The Board denied the adjournment, noting the delay was solely attributable to the respondent.

During the hearing, the respondent's president refused to answer relevant questions regarding the construction jobs in issue, despite being directed to do so by the Board.

The Board warned the witness that his refusal could constitute contempt in the face of the Board, which carries penalties including imprisonment.

The Board adjourned the proceeding to allow the witness to consult with counsel before determining the contempt issue.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties disputed the bargaining unit description, specifically whether students employed in a co-operative training program should be excluded from the full-time unit.

The Board reviewed its practice of excluding such students due to their lack of long-term commitment and different terms and conditions of employment compared to permanent full-time employees.

The Board concluded that the student in question lacked a community of interest with the full-time employees and ordered that students in co-operative training programs be excluded from the bargaining unit.

A Board Officer was appointed to inquire into the duties of a disputed supervisory position.

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

The Board found that the applicant established its status as a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, as employees had adopted a constitution and confirmed their membership at a founding meeting.

However, the application for certification was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient valid membership support by the terminal date.

Most membership cards were signed before the union came into existence, and the confirmatory documents were signed and filed after the terminal date.

The Board declined to extend the terminal date to cure the defective membership evidence.

The applicant employee filed an application to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union argued that the petition was not voluntary due to the employer's conduct during a recent lock-out, the hiring of replacement workers, and the payment of a larger Christmas bonus to the applicant.

The Board found that the employer's actions did not taint the petition, as they were not directly related to its origination or circulation, and the petition was circulated eight months after the lock-out ended.

The Board concluded the petition was voluntary and directed a representation vote.

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

The respondent employer requested a revision of the geographic boundaries of Board area #19, which the Board declined to do without broader consultation.

The Board also resolved several disputes regarding the composition of the bargaining unit, finding that three individuals exercised managerial functions and were excluded, while determining the status of others as labourers or operators.

As the union's membership evidence demonstrated support of not less than forty-five per cent but not enough for automatic certification, the Board ordered a representation vote.

The applicant union requested the Board to reconsider its decision dismissing an application for certification following a representation vote.

The union alleged employer misconduct based on a letter distributed prior to the vote, but failed to file its objection within the prescribed time limits despite having knowledge of the letter before the deadline.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, emphasizing the need for expedition and certainty in its procedures, and finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the untimely objection.

The applicant union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer and a group of objecting employees challenged the application.

A petition opposing certification and a counter-petition reaffirming support for the union were filed.

The Board held a hearing to determine the voluntariness of the counter-petition.

After reviewing the evidence regarding its origination, preparation, and circulation, the Board found that the counter-petition was signed voluntarily, free from threats, intimidation, or undue influence.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to schedule further hearings on outstanding issues.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union failed to provide him with an audited financial statement, contrary to section 87(2) of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, and that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 76 by donating funds contrary to its constitution.

The Board ordered the union to provide the financial statement, finding that mere access to the information did not satisfy the statutory requirement.

However, the Board dismissed the section 76 complaint, holding that the duty of fair representation only regulates the union's conduct vis-a-vis the employer, and the alleged constitutional breach was a purely internal union matter.