Kevin Whitaker

The responding party requested a reconsideration of a prior decision.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the request for reconsideration.

The applicant trade union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the respondent taxi company thwarted its organizing campaign through threats of closure, promoting an alternative employee association, undue surveillance, and dismissing a union supporter.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer breached sections 70, 72, and 76 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, by threatening to close the business if unionized and by actively supporting the formation of an alternative employee association.

The Board dismissed the allegations regarding surveillance and the employee's dismissal.

Despite finding some misconduct by the union regarding membership evidence, the Board ordered remedial relief, including a posting, a reading of the notice over the dispatch system, and the provision of employee contact information to the union.

The applicant trade union filed for certification under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging employer unfair labour practices prevented it from demonstrating the required membership support for a representation vote.

Following the application, the legislature passed Bill 31, which amended section 11 to require that a prior representation vote must have been held before the Board could order a second vote as a remedy.

The respondent employer moved to dismiss the certification application on the basis that the amended section 11 no longer permitted certification without a prior vote.

The Board agreed, finding that the explicit language of the amended section 11 restricted remedies to ordering a second vote, and dismissed the certification application.

However, the Board declined to impose a bar on future applications by the union.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party trade union's bargaining rights.

The Board found the application timely but noted that of the 26 pieces of membership evidence filed, 11 were undated and one did not indicate the person's intentions.

Because less than forty per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a valid wish not to be represented by the trade union at the time the application was filed, the Board dismissed the application.

The applicant union sought interim relief under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997, challenging the Toronto Parking Authority's recruitment of employees currently employed by the City of Toronto.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to consider the application, as the issues arose from the negotiation process contemplated by the Act.

Although the application did not strictly comply with the Board's Rules of Procedure, the Board granted relief against strict compliance.

The Board also found that the responding parties' conduct did not appear inconsistent with the Act, but left the final determination of interim relief for a reconvened consultation.

The applicant union sought to certify a bargaining unit of Quality Assurance Technicians.

The respondent employer argued the proposed unit was inappropriate because the technicians exercised managerial functions and were not employees under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that while the technicians monitored product quality and occasionally acted as supervisors, they did not exercise sufficient control over the economic livelihoods of other employees to be considered management.

The Board concluded the technicians were employees for the purposes of the Act and issued a certificate.

The applicant filed a reprisal complaint under section 50(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, alleging he was unjustly dismissed for exercising his rights under the Act.

Prior to this application, the applicant's union declined to advance his grievances to arbitration, prompting him to file a duty of fair representation complaint under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking an order to compel arbitration.

The Board dismissed the OHSA application on a preliminary objection, finding that by pursuing the section 74 application to compel arbitration, the applicant had elected to proceed by way of arbitration under section 50(2) of the OHSA, thereby precluding the Board from hearing the matter.

The applicant sought reconsideration of an earlier Board decision that deferred his occupational health and safety complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The applicant argued the Board made factual errors, improperly declined to hear evidence about the Commission's efficacy, erred in its deferral discretion, and violated the Charter and Human Rights Code by deferring a complaint involving race discrimination.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding the applicant did not meet the threshold test for reconsideration and that the earlier decision was neither clearly wrong in law nor contrary to Board policy.

The Board also held that deferring a complaint principally about race discrimination to the specialized human rights tribunal did not violate equality rights.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint after losing a representation vote.

The employer failed to appear at the hearing.

The Board heard evidence that the employer's plant manager and a labour relations consultant threatened employees with job losses, wage reductions, and plant closure if the union was certified.

The Board found the employer violated sections 70, 72, and 76 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board granted remedial certification under section 11 and ordered the reinstatement of an inside organizer who had resigned under the reasonable belief that he would be fired for his union activities.

The applicant trade union sought reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed its application for certification and imposed a one-year bar.

The applicant argued that because the ballots from the representation vote were segregated and not counted, the application was not dismissed pursuant to section 10 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and thus the mandatory bar did not apply.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the application was indeed dismissed under section 10 because the prerequisite conditions for certification were not met.

Alternatively, the Board held it would exercise its discretion under section 111(2)(k) to impose the bar, noting it would be absurd if an applicant could avoid a bar by having an application dismissed rather than withdrawn after a vote.

The applicant filed a complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging reprisals for raising health and safety concerns, which included allegations of a racially poisoned work environment and physical hazards.

The responding party brought a preliminary motion requesting the Board defer to the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Board found that the essence of the complaint was racial discrimination and harassment, which falls squarely within the specialized jurisdiction of the Commission under the Human Rights Code.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 50(3) of the OHSA to decline to inquire into the matter and dismissed the application.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board determined it could rely on membership evidence in the form of combination cards signed between six months and one year prior to the application date.

Finding that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members, the Board directed a representation vote.

One Board Member dissented.

The applicant union brought unfair labour practice and contempt applications against the respondents, including a Minister of the Crown.

During the proceedings, the Vice-Chair disclosed that all Board Vice-Chairs had received confidential information regarding the selection process for the recent removal of four Vice-Chairs, an issue central to the applicant's allegations of political interference and lack of institutional independence.

The respondents moved for recusal.

The Board held that, given the high standard of natural justice applicable to its adjudicative functions, the disclosure of this highly relevant but undisclosed information raised a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The proceedings were stayed.

The union filed an application alleging the employer breached the statutory freeze provisions under section 86(1) of the Labour Relations Act by discontinuing an employee's short-term sickness benefits after he was laid off.

The employer argued that under the benefit plan pamphlet, coverage terminated upon cessation of employment.

The Board applied the 'reasonable expectations' test and found that the pamphlet did not contemplate the termination of vested benefits upon the cessation of the employment relationship.

The Board concluded that the employer's actions breached section 86(1) and ordered the reinstatement of the benefits.

The applicant union applied for a determination of whether a Records Management Co-ordinator was an 'employee' under the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer argued the position should be excluded because the incumbent had access to confidential labour relations documents.

The Board found that while the employee had access to such documents, she was not required to read or understand their contents to perform her filing duties, and such documents comprised a very small percentage of her work.

The Board concluded she was not employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations and was therefore an employee within the meaning of the Act.

The applicant union sought a declaration that Zellers was bound by the collective agreement between the union and Woolworth, arguing that a sale of a business had occurred under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

Woolworth had terminated its lease in a shopping mall, and the landlord subsequently negotiated a new lease with Zellers.

Zellers completely renovated the premises and hired its own employees, with only five former Woolworth employees being hired through a standard application process.

The Board applied an instrumental analysis and found that no operational entity or constituent components of Woolworth's business had passed to Zellers, other than the physical location.

The application was dismissed as no sale of a business took place.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the respondent employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith by refusing to sign a collective agreement after the union ratified the employer's final offer.

The employer failed to file a reply, and the Board deemed the facts in the application accepted.

The Board found that the employer reneged on its own proposal regarding a specific job classification after the union had altered its position by ratifying it.

The Board declared a violation of the Labour Relations Act and ordered the employer to sign the collective agreement.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 174 of the Environmental Protection Act, alleging that the respondent employer failed to recall him from layoff as a reprisal for providing a statement to the Ministry of the Environment.

The employer argued that the applicant had been permanently laid off due to performance issues before they became aware of his involvement with the Ministry.

The Board found that the applicant's employment relationship had been severed at the time of his layoff, meaning he was not an 'employee' when the alleged reprisal occurred.

Although the Board found the employer's subsequent remarks to the applicant inappropriate and indicative of a reprisal, the application was dismissed because the statutory protection only applies to current employees.