L. C. Collins

The applicant union applied for certification for a unit of construction labourers employed by the respondent.

A group of objecting employees filed a petition opposing the certification.

The Board found that the petition was not a voluntary statement of desire, as it was circulated by an employee during working hours and signed by a foreman who directed another employee to sign it.

Given the perceived management involvement, the Board declined to order a representation vote and granted the certification based on the union's membership evidence.

The complainant, a registered nurse, filed complaints against her trade union and employer alleging violations of the Labour Relations Act, including a breach of the duty of fair representation.

The respondents moved to dismiss the complaint without a hearing on the merits, arguing it did not disclose a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the complaint raised complex questions of fact and law that were inappropriate to determine as a preliminary matter, though it dismissed the section 64 allegation for lack of standing.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer committed unfair labour practices by attempting to promote an employee out of the bargaining unit to pay him a higher wage than provided in the collective agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employee's duties had not substantially changed and he did not exercise managerial functions.

The Board held that the employer violated sections 64 and 67 of the Labour Relations Act by bargaining directly with the employee to circumvent the collective agreement.

The Board ordered the employee reinstated to the bargaining unit and directed the employer to remit back union dues and post a notice of its violations.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer.

The Board previously found the two corporate respondents to be related employers.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit, deciding on a single unit for both companies and applying its usual geographic scope for the lumber industry.

The Board found that the employer violated sections 64 and 70 of the Labour Relations Act through a letter and statements made by the president, but concluded these breaches were not so flagrant as to prevent the true wishes of the employees from being ascertained in a representation vote.

The Board ordered remedial measures, including a notice to employees and union access, and directed a representation vote.

Following a finding that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to process the complainants' grievances regarding layoff selection, the Board convened a hearing to determine the appropriate remedy.

The Board decided to interpret the collective agreement itself rather than referring the matter to arbitration, finding that the union's internal conflict made arbitration inappropriate.

The Board concluded that the collective agreement required layoffs to be based on departmental seniority rather than mill seniority.

The Board awarded compensation to the complainants for lost wages during specific layoff periods, plus interest, but denied their request for costs.

The applicant union requested reconsideration of a Board decision which found that the employer, John Hayman & Sons Company, Limited, was not bound to the current provincial agreement.

The union argued the Board failed to consider its arguments regarding abandonment of bargaining rights and voluntary recognition.

The Board declined to reconsider, noting that it had fully addressed the union's arguments in its original decision.

The Board reiterated that because the union already held bargaining rights under a predecessor agreement, the subsequent agreement did not constitute voluntary recognition, and thus the employer was not captured by the 'basket' provision of the certificate of accreditation.

The applicant union and grievor, a union steward, filed a grievance after the grievor was discharged following a verbal exchange with the respondent's superintendent.

The superintendent had angrily confronted the crew about their productivity, threatening to fire them, to which the grievor responded, 'I'm the shop steward, get the message.' The employer argued this constituted insubordination justifying discharge.

The Board found that the superintendent's tone provoked the response and that a union steward has the right to reasonably challenge management authority.

The Board concluded the grievor's conduct did not merit discipline, allowed the grievance, and ordered compensation for lost earnings.

During a hearing into an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the union bargained to impasse over a single collective agreement, the union sought production of the employer negotiator's notes to test his credibility regarding alleged strike threats.

The Board ordered partial production of the notes, balancing the union's right to make a full defence against the employer's right to maintain the secrecy of its negotiating strategy.

The Board restricted production to notes directly relevant to the alleged threats and the specific proposals at issue, excluding notes detailing the employer's broader bargaining strategy.

The applicant union sought a declaration that there had been a sale of a business or that the respondents were one employer under the Labour Relations Act.

As a preliminary issue, the Board considered whether the union held bargaining rights for ironworkers employed by the respondent Hayman, which would bind Hayman to the current provincial agreement.

The Board found that the union's bargaining rights, if any, existed prior to the application for accreditation by the employers' association.

Since Hayman was not named in the certificate of accreditation and the union did not acquire bargaining rights subsequent to the application date, Hayman was not bound to the provincial agreement by virtue of the certificate.

The applicant union applied for certification.

During the proceedings, an objecting employee alleged a 'non-pay', claiming she had not paid the required one dollar for her membership card.

While the Board found the evidence on the non-pay conflicting, it discovered that the union official who signed the Form 9 Declaration Concerning Membership Documents had failed to make any inquiries of the actual collectors regarding the collection of the one-dollar payments.

Applying established Board jurisprudence, the Board held that the failure to make the required inquiries rendered the Form 9 declaration invalid.

Consequently, the membership evidence could not be relied upon, and the application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Although the union had sufficient membership support for automatic certification, a group of employees filed a petition in opposition, and some employees subsequently filed revocations of their signatures on the petition.

The Board held an inquiry to determine whether the revocations were signed after the petition and represented the voluntary wishes of the employees.

Finding that the viva voce evidence failed to establish the sequence of signing, the Board directed a continuation of the hearing to inquire into the voluntariness of the original petition.

One Board member dissented, arguing the revocations should be accepted regardless of sequence.

The respondents requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision that found their blanket prohibition on the distribution of union literature on store premises to be an unfair labour practice.

The Board declined to reconsider the merits of the case, reaffirming that its reconsideration power is not a forum for re-arguing decided issues.

However, the Board modified the required Notice to Employees to better reflect the employer's stated policy on casual conversation, while finding that the employer's previous letters prohibiting all solicitation violated section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicants applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union filed a counter-petition signed by employees who wished to continue being represented by the union, which included signatures of employees who had previously signed the applicants' petition.

The applicants alleged the counter-petition was not voluntary due to perceived employer support and undue influence by the union.

The Board found no evidence of employer support for the counter-petition and concluded the union's conduct did not impair the employees' ability to voluntarily express their wishes.

As the voluntary counter-petition reduced the applicants' support below the required 45 per cent, the application was dismissed.

The applicants sought a declaration under the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act that a transfer of an undertaking had occurred from the Crown to the municipality.

The Crown had conveyed the administration of a part of its Family Benefits Act program to the municipality, and six former Crown employees accepted employment there.

The respondent union argued no transfer occurred because the Crown lacked statutory authority to have the work performed by non-Crown employees.

The Board held that the legal authority of the Crown to effect a transfer is not determinative of whether a transfer occurred under the Act.

Finding that a transfer and intermingling of employees had occurred, the Board declared that the municipality was no longer bound by the respondent union's collective agreement and that the applicant union was the bargaining agent for all employees in the unit.

During a hearing into an application for certification, the Board investigated allegations that the applicant union submitted membership evidence indicating employees had paid one dollar when they had not.

The Board found that one employee had not paid the dollar, rendering his card invalid.

However, the Board accepted the evidence of union officials over a conflicting witness regarding another card, concluding that the remaining membership documents were reliable despite procedural irregularities.

The matter was relisted for continuation.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the respondents, a livestock feed distributor and two vehicle leasing/driver supply companies, constituted a single employer.

The union argued that the feed distributor's decision to contract out its transportation needs to the other respondents, who hired many of the previous drivers, created a related employer situation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that while the entities might be under common control or direction, there were no compelling labour relations reasons to exercise its discretion to make the declaration.

The Board noted the feed distributor had no financial interest in the other companies and did not exercise sufficient control over their labour relations.

The applicant union sought certification for employees at the respondent's service centre.

The parties disputed whether Parts Clerical, Delivery Clerical, Receiving Clerical, and Service Clerical employees should be included in the bargaining unit.

The Board found that these employees performed functions similar to the Merchandise Control Office and Customer Convenience Centre, and lacked a community of interest with the production employees.

The Board excluded them from the bargaining unit as office and clerical staff and issued a final certificate.

The complainants, skilled tradesmen, alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act and engaged in intimidation under section 70 by refusing to process their grievances regarding the application of departmental versus mill seniority during layoffs.

The Board dismissed the section 70 complaint, finding no intimidation.

However, the Board found that the union president acted arbitrarily and in bad faith by refusing to process the grievances due to personal animosity and by withholding relevant information from the membership.

The Board held that the union breached section 68 and directed the parties to provide further submissions on the appropriate remedy, noting that referring the matter to arbitration might not be appropriate given the union's conflict of interest.

The complainant filed an unfair labour practice complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion requesting the Board defer the matter to arbitration.

Applying the Valdi deferral doctrine, the Board found that the dispute over a payment to the intervener was essentially a contractual issue that could be resolved by an arbitrator.

The Board granted the motion and deferred the complaint to arbitration, retaining jurisdiction in the event the arbitrator failed to deal with the unfair labour practice issues.

The complainant union alleged that Eaton's and Cadillac Fairview committed unfair labour practices by interfering with its campaign to organize employees at the Toronto Eaton Centre.

The union challenged Eaton's no-solicitation and no-distribution rules, as well as Cadillac Fairview's refusal to allow non-employee organizers to distribute literature in the mall outside the store entrances.

The Board held that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to private property disputes between citizens.

However, applying the Labour Relations Act, the Board found that Eaton's blanket prohibition on the distribution of union literature during non-working hours, and Cadillac Fairview's prohibition of non-employee organizers in areas where normal public contact was not interfered with, constituted unlawful interference with the employees' right to organize.

The Board ordered Eaton's to cease its blanket prohibition and Cadillac Fairview to permit restricted access.