K. V. Rogers

The applicant union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

During the hearing, the Board ruled that evidence of discussions with a mediator and a Board Officer was inadmissible due to statutory confidentiality and settlement privilege.

The union subsequently asserted that a settlement had been reached, causing the respondent's counsel to become a potential witness.

The respondent requested an adjournment to retain new counsel.

The Board granted the adjournment, holding that the 30-day time limit in section 40a(2) of the Labour Relations Act is directory rather than mandatory, and that natural justice required the adjournment.

A dissenting Board member argued the time limits should be considered mandatory.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by terminating two employees, holding a captive audience meeting, questioning employees about union membership, and assaulting a union official on the picket line.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the terminations, the meeting, and the questioning were motivated by anti-union animus and constituted unlawful interference and discrimination.

The Board dismissed the allegation regarding the picket line assault, finding it was a personal altercation rather than intimidation under the Act.

The employer was ordered to reinstate the terminated employees with compensation and post a notice of the violations.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The respondent employer brought a preliminary motion to extend the terminal date, arguing that the Board notices were received and posted late, giving employees insufficient time to respond.

The majority of the Board dismissed the motion, finding that the actual notice given to employees was adequate, the Registrar complied with Rule 2, and no employees had appeared or objected to the application.

The Board found that the applicant had the requisite membership support and ordered that a certificate issue.

One Board member dissented, arguing that the time provided to employees fell short of the prescribed minimum and the terminal date should have been extended.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union applied for a declaration that the Ministry of Natural Resources' contract with two individuals to operate Fitzroy Provincial Park constituted a transfer of an undertaking under the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act.

The Board found that the contractors were operating the park for their own account, assuming financial risks, and using the physical assets and similar jobs as formerly performed by Crown employees.

The Board concluded that the transaction was analogous to a lease or franchise and declared it a transfer of an undertaking from the Crown to an employer.

In an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights, a representation vote resulted in a tie.

One employee requested that the vote be set aside, claiming she had misread the ballot and mistakenly voted in favour of the union when she intended to vote against it.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the request, holding that it would not inquire into the subjective intent of a voter or look behind an unambiguously marked ballot, as doing so would undermine the secrecy and integrity of the voting process.

In an application for certification, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined the eligibility of three individuals to vote in a representation vote for an office employees bargaining unit.

The Board ruled that Chantelle MacAllister's ballot would be counted because the applicant abandoned its challenge.

Lisette Larocque's ballot would be counted because the respondent could not unilaterally withdraw from an earlier agreement that she was an employee in the unit.

Jean Lamoureux's ballot would not be counted because the respondent had previously agreed he was in a different, mutually exclusive bargaining unit on the eligibility date.