Kevin M. Burkett

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a group of truck drivers.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union.

The main issue was whether eight owner-operator drivers were dependent contractors or independent contractors.

The Board found they were economically dependent on the respondent and under an obligation to perform duties, making them dependent contractors.

The Board ordered representation votes to determine if a single employee driver should be included in the same bargaining unit as the dependent contractors.

The applicant unions filed pre-hearing displacement applications for certification.

The intervener incumbent union argued the applications were untimely because the Inflation Restraint Act extended the existing collective agreements, thereby closing the 'open period' under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that section 13 of the Inflation Restraint Act extended the collective agreements beyond their normal expiry dates, rendering the applications untimely.

The Board also rejected the argument that this extension violated the freedom of association under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification of a unit of part-time office and clerical employees at the respondent hospital.

The parties disputed the geographic scope of the bargaining unit.

The respondent sought to restrict the unit to the municipality of Belleville, while the applicant sought a unit without geographic restriction, mirroring the existing full-time unit.

The Board applied its policy of mirroring part-time units with full-time units to avoid a multiplicity of bargaining units.

Finding that more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the unit were members of the applicant, the Board granted the certification.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer breached the Labour Relations Act by refusing to execute a collective agreement based on its last offer.

The employer had insisted on a clause requiring employee ratification of the agreement.

After the employees rejected the offer but also voted against a strike, the union accepted the employer's offer.

The employer refused to sign, citing the lack of employee ratification.

The Board held that the employer's insistence on employee ratification and refusal to execute the agreement constituted an unlawful attempt to bypass the union and deal directly with employees, breaching sections 15 and 64 of the Act.

The Board directed the employer to execute the collective agreement.

The complainant union filed a complaint alleging that the respondent employer violated the Labour Relations Act by repudiating a collective agreement.

The employer argued that its secretary, who signed the agreement, lacked the authority to do so.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the secretary had both real and ostensible authority to bind the company, given his position, past signing of agreements, and the employer's representations during bargaining.

The Board declared the collective agreement valid and binding, directing the employer to apply its terms retroactively.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer failed to make required remittances for various funds.

The employer argued it was not bound by a collective agreement for sewer and watermain work.

The Board held that while a preliminary 'short agreement' was not a collective agreement, the parties' Concrete and Drain Agreement was binding.

Under article 10.04 of that agreement, the employer was required to apply the terms of the Sewer and Watermain Agreement to such work, even after the latter agreement had expired.

The Board directed the employer to make the required remittances.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer laid off four employees for anti-union reasons and unlawfully continued to bargain with the incumbent union.

The Board found that the layoffs were motivated by anti-union considerations, as they occurred out of seniority order and shortly after the employees supported the applicant.

However, the Board held that the employer's continued bargaining with the incumbent union did not violate the statutory freeze or constitute unlawful interference, adopting the approach that the duty to bargain continues during a displacement application.

The Board declined to certify the applicant without a vote under section 8, preserving the presumption of the incumbent's continuing majority status, but ordered compensation for the laid-off employees and gave the applicant the option of relying on the initial representation vote or requesting a new mailed ballot vote.

During a protracted strike, the union filed unfair labour practice complaints against the employer companies and a security company, alleging the security company provided an agent provocateur.

The union and the employers reached a settlement and the union sought to withdraw its complaint against the employers, but proceed against the security company.

The security company argued that as an agent, releasing the principal released it, relying on the common law doctrine of joint tortfeasors.

The Board rejected the application of the joint tortfeasor doctrine to the Labour Relations Act, finding that the security company was a 'person acting on behalf of an employer' and thus independently subject to the Act's prohibitions.

The Board allowed the withdrawal against the employers and directed the complaint against the security company to proceed.

In an application for certification, the respondent employer alleged that an employee signed a union membership card but failed to pay the required $1.00 initiation fee.

The Board heard evidence from the employee, the collector, and other witnesses.

The majority of the Board found that the employee did not pay the $1.00 and that the collector had misled the union official who signed the Form 9 declaration.

Consequently, the Board declined to give any weight to the 20 membership cards collected by that individual.

The Board reserved its decision on whether to apply section 8 of the Act until the unfair labour practice allegations were heard.

The applicants, two of the three employees in the bargaining unit, applied under section 57(2) of the Labour Relations Act to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

A Board-appointed Vice-Chairman found that the application was voluntary and that the collective agreement had expired with no efforts made to negotiate a new one.

The Board adopted these findings, determined that not less than forty-five per cent of the employees had voluntarily signified they no longer wished to be represented by the union, and directed a representation vote by mailed ballot.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) applied for a declaration of successor rights and filed a complaint alleging the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith by refusing to recognize ONA as the bargaining agent.

The employer argued it had only recognized a specific local, not the provincial ONA.

The Board found that the employer had signed a clear and unequivocal voluntary recognition agreement in 1975 recognizing the provincial ONA.

The Board declared that ONA holds the bargaining rights and declined to make a formal finding of bad faith bargaining, expecting the employer to comply.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested the Board apply section 8 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the employer committed unfair labour practices that prevented the ascertainment of the employees' true wishes.

The Board found that the employer violated the Act when a manager attempted to elicit information from an employee about the union and suggested forming an employee association.

However, the Board concluded that this violation, along with a previously remedied unlawful termination, did not make it unlikely that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained.

The application for certification under section 8 was dismissed, but the Board ordered the employer to cease and desist from unlawful interference and to post and distribute a notice to employees.

The union applied for certification of employees in the respondent's diagnostic services division.

A dispute arose over whether two employees who performed blood tests and electrocardiograms at a nursing home were 'hospital employees' under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The Board held that because the employer was not a hospital and the functions performed were not statutorily required of a nursing home, the employees were not 'hospital employees' within the meaning of the Act.

The complainant, a senior mechanic, was suspended twice by his employer: first for refusing to shut off a fan that was interfering with a smoke extractor, and second for refusing to wear newly issued reusable ear plugs and substituting disposable ones.

He filed complaints alleging the discipline was a reprisal for acting in compliance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaints, finding that the complainant was disciplined for insubordination rather than for exercising his rights under the Act.

The Board held that the Act does not entitle an employee to unilaterally disregard employer instructions or substitute protective devices without following the statutory procedures for reporting defects or refusing unsafe work.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the employer unlawfully interfered with its organizing campaign by soliciting grievances, providing additional help, and sending anti-union communications.

The Board found that the employer violated section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by soliciting grievances and conferring benefits (part-time help) to undermine the union.

However, the employer's written communications were deemed lawful free speech.

The Board declined to grant automatic certification under section 8, finding that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained after applying remedial measures, including a posting and union access to employees.

The application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent registered and graduate nurses at the respondent's nursing home.

The respondent argued the nurses performed managerial functions and were excluded from the Labour Relations Act under section 1(3)(b).

The Board found that while the nurses exercised professional supervisory and reporting functions, true managerial authority regarding discipline, assessment, scheduling, and hiring rested with the Director of Nursing.

The Board concluded the nurses were employees within the meaning of the Act and granted the certification application.

The applicant, a university professor, applied for an exemption from paying mandatory union dues on religious grounds under section 47 of the Labour Relations Act.

He argued that his religious beliefs, which emphasize individual responsibility and reject coercion, prevented him from supporting the faculty association.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's long-standing opposition to the union was based on professional concerns about academic standards and collegiality, rather than religious conviction.

The union applied for certification for employees at a single K Mart department store in Metropolitan Toronto.

The employer argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should encompass all four of its stores in the municipality, relying on the Board's general practice for retail stores.

The Board found that the single store unit was appropriate, noting that local management controlled day-to-day employment relations, there was little interchange of employees between stores, and the union had organized on a single store basis.

The Board emphasized that requiring a municipal-wide unit would effectively impede the employees' access to collective bargaining.

Certificates were issued for the full-time and part-time units at the single store.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging the respondent company was bound by a provincial agreement based on a 'short form' agreement signed by an on-site installer in 1975.

The Board found that the installer lacked both actual and apparent authority to bind the company to a collective agreement.

Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence that the company subsequently ratified the agreement through its conduct.

The grievance was dismissed.

In an application for certification, the employer objected to the union reviewing the employee list, arguing it could be used for future organizing and that employees wished to remain anonymous.

The Board ruled that the union must be given access to the list to verify its accuracy, as the Board relies on it to determine union support.

The Board also ruled that the union could review the list without management present to protect the secrecy of union membership and solicitor-client privilege.

A representation vote was ordered.