K. G. O'Neil

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to arbitration.

A key witness for the respondent repeatedly failed to appear and produce subpoenaed documents despite previous Board directives and a prior arrest warrant.

The Board found the witness in contempt of its directives and issued a further warrant for his arrest, directing him to appear at the next hearing date with the required payroll records.

The Board also directed the union to specify which documents remained outstanding and warned the witness of potential fines or imprisonment for continued non-compliance.

The applicant applied for termination of construction industry bargaining rights.

The respondent union argued the applicant lacked standing because he was not at work on the application date, rendering the application a nullity.

The applicant sought to add two other employees who were at work on the application date as party applicants.

The Board held that although the original applicant lacked standing, the application was not a nullity.

The Board exercised its discretion under Rules 79 and 84 to add the two other petitioners as applicants, allowing the application to proceed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act against three non-profit corporations involved in the construction of a seniors' apartment building.

The Board found that the three corporations carried on related activities under common control and direction, and exercised its discretion to grant the related employer declaration to prevent the potential erosion of bargaining rights.

The Board also granted the application for certification, issuing certificates for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector and all other sectors in the appropriate geographic area.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer violated the Labour Relations Act by discharging one employee, demoting another, and engaging in anti-union communications during an organizing campaign.

The employer argued that the discharge was solely due to the employee's unauthorized taking of confidential employee phone numbers for the union's use.

The Board found that the severity of the discharge and the demotion were tainted by anti-union animus, as the employer failed to consider mitigating factors and used the incidents to deliver anti-union messages.

The Board also held that the employer's statements during mandatory employee meetings crossed the line from protected free speech into undue influence by linking unionization with job losses.

The complaint was allowed in part, with reinstatement ordered for the affected employees and a posting of a notice to employees.

Following a finding that the complainant was unlawfully discharged for raising safety concerns after a workplace injury, the Board held a hearing to determine compensation.

The Board awarded $500 in damages for mental distress, finding that the abrupt and unlawful termination exacerbated the complainant's existing post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Board also awarded $1,700 for dental work that would have been covered by the employer's benefits plan had the complainant not been unlawfully discharged, as well as outstanding vacation pay.

One Board member dissented on the award of mental distress damages.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of full-time drivers, while the respondent employer argued for an all-employee unit including both full-time and part-time drivers to prevent fragmentation.

The Board applied its normal practice of excluding part-time employees at the request of either party, finding no serious labour relations problems that would render the applicant's proposed unit inappropriate.

The Board certified the applicant for the full-time unit.

One Board member dissented, arguing for a single unit since the only difference between the groups was hours worked.

The applicant union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the respondent employer, which installs and maintains cellular phone antennae and support structures.

The respondent raised a preliminary constitutional objection, arguing its operations were integral to federal telecommunications undertakings (Bell Cellular and Cantel) and thus subject to federal labour relations jurisdiction.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the test from Northern Telecom and found that the respondent's day-to-day operations were extensively integrated with and vital to the functioning of the federal cellular networks.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the respondent's labour relations fell within federal jurisdiction and dismissed the applications for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of the respondent's drivers in the Sudbury, Sturgeon Falls, and Espanola districts.

The respondent employer argued that the only appropriate unit would encompass all its drivers in the entire Northern Ontario region.

The Board found that the applicant's proposed unit was appropriate for collective bargaining, noting that it did not present serious labour relations problems and that the distances in Northern Ontario provided disincentives to a region-wide unit.

A certificate was issued for the applicant's proposed unit, with one Board Member dissenting.

The applicant union applied for direction of settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration under the Labour Relations Act.

Subsequently, the union applied under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA), asserting the respondent employer is a hospital.

The employer argued the Board should dismiss or defer the first contract application.

The Board declined to dismiss the application for abuse of process but adjourned the hearing pending the Minister's decision on the respondent's status under the HLDAA, noting the balance of convenience favoured avoiding a potentially null proceeding.

The complainant union alleged that the respondents violated section 78 of the Labour Relations Act by setting up a picket line at an excavation site, which they knew or ought to have known would cause employees to engage in an unlawful strike.

The respondents, representatives of an aggregate haulers association, argued their activities were a lawful demonstration to improve rates for owner-operators.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the evidence did not establish the presence of picket signs or any attempt to persuade employees to slow down or stop working.

The Board concluded that the brief delays caused to non-employee trucks did not constitute a work slowdown or establish that an unlawful strike was a reasonable and probable consequence of the respondents' actions.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer's decision to lay off several employees was motivated by anti-union animus.

The employer argued the layoffs were strictly due to the loss of a major contract and a general economic downturn.

The Board found that while there were valid business reasons for downsizing, the specific selection of employees for the July layoffs was tainted by anti-union animus, as the laid-off employees were key union supporters.

The Board also found that letters distributed by the employer's president crossed the line of permissible free speech into undue influence by linking unionization to job insecurity.

A petition circulated by employees opposing the union was deemed involuntary due to the climate of fear regarding job security.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the unlawfully laid-off employees with compensation and certified the union.

The complainant, a probationary control centre operator, alleged he was discharged in reprisal for requesting his supervisor not to smoke in his presence, contrary to the Occupational Health and Safety Act and The Smoking in the Workplace Act.

The employer maintained the discharge was solely due to performance issues, including poor communication with the public and reading on duty.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding the employer's reasons credible and untainted by anti-safety animus, noting the discharge was prompted by complaints from a superior unaware of the smoking dispute.

The Board held a hearing to determine the compensation owed to the complainant following a finding that she was unlawfully discharged for a work refusal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The employer argued that compensation should be reduced due to the complainant's failure to mitigate damages, her delay in filing the complaint, and her receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

The Board found that the complainant made reasonable efforts to mitigate her damages and declined to deduct unemployment insurance benefits from the award.

However, the Board reduced the compensation period by 16 weeks due to an unexplained delay in filing the complaint.

The employer was ordered to pay $10,242.18 in compensation and interest.

The union applied for certification and filed a related section 89 unfair labour practice complaint, seeking to consolidate the two proceedings.

The employer and objecting employees opposed the setting of peremptory hearing dates.

The Board ordered the matters consolidated due to overlapping evidence and set ten peremptory hearing dates to ensure the certification matter was dealt with expeditiously, adjourning the case to a new panel.

The applicant employee association applied for certification and was required to establish its status as a trade union under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the steps taken to form the association, including adopting a constitution, electing officers, and setting dues, were sufficient to establish it as a trade union.

Although membership cards were signed before the constitution was officially adopted, the Board held that subsequent acts consistent with membership, such as ratifying the constitution at a general meeting, validated the membership evidence.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of business occurred from The Westbury Hotel to Ronnie Gee's Sports Palace, and that the successor employer was bound by the existing collective agreement.

The respondent acknowledged the sale but requested to be relieved of the collective agreement obligations, arguing it was inapplicable to its sports bar operation.

The respondent also argued the bargaining unit only covered full-time employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declared the respondent bound by the collective agreement, finding no statutory basis to relieve it of the obligations.

The Board also clarified that the collective agreement explicitly covered both full-time and part-time employees.

The complainant, a wood-working shop employee, was laid off on his first day back from a Workers' Compensation absence.

Prior to his lay-off, he had repeatedly raised health and safety concerns regarding the shop's condition, including the lack of safety guards and a defective dust collector door that had previously injured him.

On the day of his lay-off, he refused to work due to these unsafe conditions and was subsequently terminated.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving that the lay-off was untainted by the complainant's exercise of his rights under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board ordered the complainant reinstated with compensation.

The applicant union applied for certification and submitted membership evidence for over 55% of the bargaining unit.

Objecting employees filed a petition opposing the union, and the union subsequently filed counter-petitions reaffirming support.

The Board found both the petition and counter-petitions to be voluntary.

Because the counter-petitions were the last voluntary statement of intention, the Board relied on them to establish the union's support level.

The Board declined to order a representation vote, finding no evidence of misrepresentation, intimidation, or undue influence by the union organizers.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The union applied for certification of a tag-end bargaining unit including Operations Supervisors at Transit Windsor.

The employer argued that the Operations Supervisors exercised managerial functions and should be excluded under section 1(3)(b) of the Act.

The majority of the Board found that the Operations Supervisors exercised significant disciplinary powers, including issuing warnings and suspensions, which created a conflict of interest with bargaining unit employees.

The Board concluded that the Operations Supervisors exercised managerial functions and excluded them from the bargaining unit.

A dissenting member would have included them, finding their disciplinary role to be merely administrative.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated the statutory freeze provisions of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to pay maturity and promotional salary increases after the expiry of the collective agreement.

The employer argued that its historical practice during freeze periods was not to pay such increases, establishing a privilege or 'business as usual'.

The majority of the Board upheld the complaint, finding that the clear language of the expired collective agreement governed the freeze period, and the employer's past practice during previous freezes did not override the terms of the agreement.

The employer was ordered to pay the increases.