K. G. O'Neil

The union applied for certification of employees at a retail store.

The employer and a group of objecting employees argued that the application should be dismissed or a representation vote ordered because the employee who initiated the organizing campaign exercised managerial functions or was employed in a confidential capacity regarding labour relations.

They also alleged that the membership evidence was obtained through misrepresentations and undue influence.

The Board found that the employee in question did not exercise managerial functions or act in a confidential capacity, and that the membership evidence was reliable.

The union was certified.

The union applied for interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking to reinstate its chief inside organizer to her previous office duties pending the resolution of unfair labour practice complaints.

The employer had kept the organizer assigned to cashier duties following the conclusion of certification hearings, contrary to a prior Board order.

The Board found that the union established an arguable case of a breach of the Act and that the balance of harm favoured granting interim relief to preserve the status quo and ensure compliance with Board orders.

The Board ordered the organizer reinstated to her office duties with minor accommodations.

The Minister referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 3(2) of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, asking whether Branch 133 Legion Village is a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Act.

The Board concluded that the Village, which provides residential accommodation and health care assistance for seniors, qualifies as a 'home for the aged' and therefore falls within the statutory definition of a hospital.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 3(2) of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act regarding whether Barclay House, a retirement home, is a hospital within the meaning of the Act.

The Board advised the Minister that Barclay House is a hospital because it is a home for the aged.

The Board found that a major component of the service offered by Barclay House is the observation and assessment of its aged residents, which satisfies the statutory definition, regardless of whether the observation is strictly medical in nature.

The union applied for certification and filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the employer discharged a union supporter and engaged in a pervasive campaign of interference during an organizing drive.

The Board found that the discharge was motivated by a bona fide belief of theft, not anti-union animus, and that the employer's frequent written communications fell within the bounds of free speech.

However, the Board held that the employer breached the Act by prohibiting union solicitation on company property during an employee's vacation, promising to clear discipline records, removing last names from schedules, and granting an unprecedented Christmas bonus as an inducement.

The Board concluded these violations were not so serious as to prevent the ascertainment of employees' true wishes under section 8.

The union referred construction industry grievances to arbitration, arguing that a cross-over clause in the sewer and watermain collective agreement bound the responding employer to pay union rates for road building work.

The employer, who was not a member of the accredited employers' organization, argued that the organization's bargaining authority was limited to the sewer and watermain sector.

The Board held that the statutory accreditation scheme is based on sectoral bargaining and does not impose rights by operation of law beyond the specified sector.

Therefore, the cross-over clause did not apply to the non-member employer in the road building sector.

The applicant employer sought restrictions on picketing at a non-struck grocery store located in a shopping mall, pursuant to section 11.1(5) of the Labour Relations Act.

The union, engaged in a lawful strike at other locations, picketed the receiving dock, forcing delivery trucks to unload across the parking lot.

The Board found that while the picketing did not completely disrupt the store's operations, the resulting unloading process across a large, icy parking lot created unsafe working conditions.

The Board held this constituted "undue disruption" and concluded that restrictions on the distance over which unloading occurred were appropriate to ensure safety, though it declined to restrict a two-hour delay between trucks that had been agreed to by the parties.

The union referred construction industry grievances to arbitration, alleging the employer breached the sewer and watermain collective agreement by failing to use union members or make required remittances.

The employer argued the union had abandoned its bargaining rights in the road building sector through disuse.

The Board found that the union had not abandoned its bargaining rights, noting its previous picketing activity and enforcement of rights in the sewers and watermains sector.

The Board reserved its decision on whether the employer was bound by a cross-over clause in the agreement, pending notice to the accredited employer association.

The applicant union sought a declaration that its bargaining rights bound the responding party, Heritage Green Senior Centre, following the Ministry of Health's takeover and subsequent reallocation of nursing home beds from the revoked license of Saint Elizabeth Nursing Home.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the Ministry's operation of the home constituted a Crown undertaking, and the issuance of a new license to Heritage Green, along with the transfer of residents, constituted a transfer of that undertaking.

The Board further held that valid bargaining rights existed and that intermingling of employees had occurred.

The application was allowed, and the collective agreement was declared to apply as of the date of transfer without the need for a representation vote.

The union applied for certification to represent employees at a producer-owned cannery co-operative.

The employer argued the application should be dismissed because the employees were employed in agriculture, or alternatively, that seasonal workers should be excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board held that although the co-operative processed agricultural products, the industrial nature of the canning work and the separate corporate entity meant the employees were not employed in agriculture.

The Board further held that an all-employee bargaining unit, including seasonal workers, was appropriate, as the seasonal workers shared a sufficient community of interest and their inclusion would not cause serious labour relations problems.

A certificate was issued for the all-employee unit.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated the replacement worker provisions of the Labour Relations Act during a lawful strike.

The employer had promoted a bargaining unit employee to a newly created management position and used occasional employees to perform work ordinarily done by striking employees.

The Board found that the newly promoted manager and the occasional employees were 'engaged' after the notice to bargain and were therefore prohibited from performing bargaining unit work.

However, the Board dismissed the complaint regarding a newly hired tool and die maker performing driving duties, as driving was not considered bargaining unit work.

The employer was ordered to cease using the prohibited individuals for bargaining unit work and to post a notice to employees.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit consisting of cleaners and maintenance workers at a shopping mall, or alternatively, a unit including security guards.

The responding employer argued for an all-employee unit, citing its integrated customer service approach and the regular interchange of duties among staff.

The Board applied the community of interest test and found that while the maintenance group could likely bargain together viably, a separate unit would cause serious labour relations problems due to fragmentation.

The Board concluded that the applicant's proposed unit was not appropriate and that the employer's proposed all-employee unit was appropriate.

A representation vote was ordered for the wider unit.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of clerical employees at a medical centre, explicitly excluding registered nurses.

The responding employer argued that the appropriate unit should be an all-employee unit including the nurses.

The Board examined the community of interest and the extensive overlap in duties between the clerical staff and nurses, particularly in reception and patient handling.

The majority concluded that excluding the nurses would likely cause serious labour relations problems, such as jurisdictional disputes, due to the high degree of functional integration.

Finding the proposed unit inappropriate and noting the union lacked sufficient support for the broader all-employee unit, the Board dismissed the application.

A dissenting member would have granted the proposed unit to facilitate access to collective bargaining.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit composed solely of Registered and Graduate Nursing Assistants (RNAs) at the responding hospital.

The hospital opposed the application, arguing that an RNA-only unit would lead to undue fragmentation and that a broader service or paramedical unit was appropriate.

The Board reviewed the specific facts, including the lack of interchange between RNAs and other classifications, the historical anomaly of the RNA role, and the employees' right to self-organization.

The majority of the Board concluded that the RNA-only unit was appropriate and granted the certification application.

One Board member dissented, citing concerns over fragmentation in the health care sector.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit composed entirely of registered and graduate nursing assistants at the responding hospital.

The hospital argued that the proposed unit was inappropriate due to concerns about fragmentation and asserted that the employees should be included in a broader service or paramedical unit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the test from Hospital for Sick Children, finding that the nursing assistants shared a sufficient community of interest and that a separate unit would not cause serious labour relations problems.

The Board granted the application and directed that a certificate issue, with one Board Member dissenting on the grounds of undue fragmentation.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application for certification after discovering a forged signature on a membership card.

The responding employer opposed the withdrawal, arguing the application should be dismissed with a six-month bar, and sought to introduce evidence of intimidation.

The Board granted the union leave to withdraw the application without imposing a bar, noting the request was made well before the hearing.

The Board declined to hear the intimidation allegations, deferring them to a second certification application filed by the union.

The applicant unions sought declarations that the responding parties, Malvern Drywall Systems Ltd. and Lakeridge Acoustics, were related employers under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, and referred grievances for arbitration.

The responding parties failed to attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

The Board found that the two businesses carried on related activities under the common control and direction of the same principal.

The Board granted the section 1(4) declaration, binding Lakeridge to the collective agreements of Malvern, and ordered the responding parties to pay outstanding remittances and previous settlement amounts to the unions.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the court-appointed receiver and manager of a nursing home was a successor employer and bound by the collective agreement.

The receiver argued that its appointment did not constitute a disposition of the business.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the receiver had virtually complete control over the nursing home's operations and assets, which amounted to a disposition within the broad meaning of 'sale' under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board declared the receiver to be a successor employer.

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the employer laid off and terminated several employees due to their involvement in a union organizing campaign.

The employer claimed the layoffs were strictly due to economic difficulties and lack of work.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's actions were motivated, at least in part, by anti-union animus.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the affected employees with compensation for lost wages and directed the employer to mail a notice of the decision to all bargaining unit employees.

The applicant filed an application for termination of the union's bargaining rights, alleging the union obtained its certificate by fraud, and also sought reconsideration of a previously dismissed termination application.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the applications on the grounds that they did not disclose a prima facie case, were untimely, and lacked particulars.

The Board dismissed the application for reconsideration, finding no new evidence or policy grounds to justify reopening the matter.

The Board also dismissed the fresh application for termination, holding that the allegations of fraud lacked the necessary particularity under Rule 72 and that the delay of over two years in raising the allegations was unacceptable and prejudicial to the ongoing collective bargaining relationship.