Laura Trachuk

The applicant union engaged in a 'work to rule' campaign while in a legal strike position.

The responding school board sent a letter to the union advising that the actions were illegal under the Education Act and threatening court proceedings if the campaign did not end.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the letter interfered with its lawful strike activity.

The Board found that the 'work to rule' campaign constituted a protected lawful strike under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

However, the Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the school board's letter expressing its view that the actions were illegal and threatening legal action did not constitute a violation of the Act.

The South Bruce Grey Health Centre applied to the Board under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 to determine the number and descriptions of bargaining units following the amalgamation of four predecessor hospitals.

The Board ruled that the bargaining units should span all four hospital locations rather than being site-specific, to facilitate administrative and programmatic changes.

Following this ruling, the parties agreed on the descriptions for an all-employees unit, a paramedical unit, and a nurses unit, and representation votes were ordered.

The applicant school board filed an application alleging that the responding union threatened or authorized an unlawful strike by issuing a 'pink list' advising teachers not to accept jobs with the school board.

The school board had recently ratified a collective agreement with its elementary teachers, but secondary teachers were still negotiating.

The school board argued that the hiring boycott could cause an unlawful strike in the elementary bargaining unit.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the definition of 'strike' under the Labour Relations Act applies only to 'employees,' and cannot be stretched to encompass individuals who have not yet applied for positions or future employees.

The Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for a determination of the number and descriptions of bargaining units appropriate for its operations following the amalgamation of two predecessor school boards.

The applicant sought five separate bargaining units, while CUPE sought an 'all employee' unit.

The Board determined that an 'all employee' bargaining unit was appropriate, noting the history of such a unit at one of the predecessor boards and the lack of labour relations problems.

The Board also ordered a representation vote.

The applicant, a health care aide and former supporter of a rival union, applied for a job posting using a blank piece of paper instead of the designated form.

Her application was discarded, and the union refused to pursue her grievance or accept the employer's offer to rerun the competition.

The applicant alleged the union violated its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union acted in bad faith, driven by antipathy towards the applicant due to her past union affiliations, and upheld the complaint.

The Board determined the bargaining unit structure following the amalgamation of four psychiatric and addiction facilities into the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The Board ordered two bargaining units: one for registered and graduate nurses, and one for all other non-managerial employees.

The Board also held that a non-union option must be included on the ballot for any unit where 40% or more of the employees were Crown employees prior to the changeover date.

The geographic scope was limited to the City of Toronto and existing Mississauga employees.

The Board declined to order the disclosure of employee addresses and telephone numbers to the unions due to safety concerns.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer terminated two maintenance employees and contracted out their work because the union claimed they were part of the bargaining unit.

The employer argued the decision was made for economic reasons prior to the union's claim.

The Board found that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving the decision was free from anti-union animus, noting the timing of the terminations and the lack of evidence supporting a prior final decision to contract out.

The Board ordered the employees reinstated with compensation.

One Board member dissented.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of employees of KPM Industries Ltd. in Onaping Falls.

The employer argued the bargaining unit should be limited to two specific divisions currently operating in the municipality, to exclude potential future employees of a third division that performs construction work.

The Board held that the appropriate employer name is the sole legal entity, KPM Industries Ltd., and declined to restrict the bargaining unit to specific divisions, finding no cogent reason to depart from its usual practice of certifying municipal-wide units.

The applicant hospital applied under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act following the amalgamation of two hospitals.

The parties agreed that a sale of a business occurred and that representation votes should be held between competing unions for merged clerical and service bargaining units.

The parties sought a determination on whether the collective agreement of the winning union would apply to all employees in the new bargaining units after the vote, and what impact the statutory freeze period would have.

The Board held that under section 69(6), the collective agreement of the successful union applies to the entire bargaining unit, and that the Board's declarations terminating the losing union's collective agreement and amending the winning union's bargaining unit description would be made retroactive to the date of the application.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union, alleging it violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by failing to present arguments and evidence regarding systemic race discrimination at her discharge grievance arbitration.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union had carriage of the grievance and was not obligated to follow the applicant's instructions on how to present the case, provided it fairly and carefully considered her suggestions.

The Board noted that the union had vigorously and thoroughly represented the applicant by advancing other arguments, including a poisoned work environment and differential treatment.

The responding employer requested reconsideration of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that directed a first contract to be settled by arbitration.

The employer alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias because the Vice-Chair who authored the decision had engaged in discussions with, and accepted a retainer from, a federal trade union (CALPA) around the time the decision was issued.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the Vice-Chair's relationship with an unrelated trade union operating in a different jurisdiction did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

A dissenting Board Member would have set the matter down for an open, public hearing.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification for a bargaining unit of security guards employed by the responding party.

The responding party and intervenor objected to the application on the grounds that the applicant had recently withdrawn a previous application, and the responding party disputed whether the applicant had sufficient membership evidence.

The majority of the Board directed that a representation vote be held by mail and that the ballots be counted, deferring the substantive objections to a post-vote hearing.

The Board declined to order the responding party to provide employee names and addresses to the applicant at this stage.

One Board member dissented, stating he would have sealed the ballot box until the jurisdictional issues were resolved.

The Board considered the order in which to hear an application for a first contract arbitration and an application for termination of bargaining rights.

The union had filed the first contract application months before the termination application was filed.

The majority of the Board directed that the first contract application be considered first, as the union had acted expeditiously and the statutory requirements for a first contract, if met, would have given rise to the circumstances making the termination application timely.

The Board also declined to order a representation vote at this time.

One Board Member dissented, arguing a representation vote should be held and the ballot box sealed.

Following the merger of two hospitals, the applicant hospital applied under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking a declaration that intermingling of employees had occurred and requesting the restructuring of multiple bargaining units into two units, along with representation votes.

The responding trade unions opposed the application, arguing that the transfer of employees did not constitute intermingling and that the hospital's actions were not bona fide.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that intermingling had occurred due to the integration of the hospitals and the regular movement of staff between sites, which caused significant operational and labour relations difficulties.

The Board exercised its discretion to combine the existing bargaining units into a paramedical unit and a service/clerical unit, and ordered representation votes to determine the bargaining agents for the newly structured units.

The union brought an application alleging that the responding party was a successor employer following the purchase of a bankrupt company's rubber division.

The responding party raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the union's bargaining rights did not extend to its location in Elora, Ontario.

The Board found that the union and the predecessor employer had attempted to amend the collective agreement to expand its geographic scope in the event of a sale, but this arrangement effectively created two collective agreements or altered the term of operation without Board consent, violating the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Consequently, the geographic scope clause did not cover the Elora location, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

The employer argued that a representation vote should not be held immediately due to an anticipated build-up of its workforce.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that the representation vote proceed, with the build-up issue to be determined after the vote.

The Board also directed that ballots be segregated by location due to a dispute over the appropriate bargaining unit.

The union applied for certification and a representation vote was held.

The employer requested a new vote, arguing that two employees did not receive notice of the actual voting hours and were deprived of the opportunity to vote because they relied on the hours proposed in the parties' agreement.

The Board dismissed the request and directed that a certificate issue, finding that sufficient notice was provided through the Board's postings and that employees are responsible for keeping themselves informed of the final vote arrangements.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of security guards employed by the responding party in Ottawa.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed unit were members.

The Board directed a representation vote, with segregated ballots for disputed positions, and deferred consideration of the responding party's objection under section 14(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to a future hearing.

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.

The union and the employer had previously agreed to continue a first contract arbitration under the transition provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that this agreement constituted an irrevocable agreement to arbitrate under section 40 of the Act, which has the same effect as a collective agreement in making a termination application untimely.

Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The applicant union was certified by the Board under section 6(2) of the old Labour Relations Act pending the resolution of a dispute over the composition of the bargaining unit.

Shortly after, the new Labour Relations Act, 1995 came into force with retroactive transitional provisions applying to proceedings where a final decision had not been issued.

The responding party employer argued the new Act should apply and a representation vote should be held.

The Board held that a certification decision under section 6(2) (now 9(2)) is a final decision regarding the union's substantive right to certification.

Therefore, the transitional provisions did not apply and the certification remained valid.