L. C. Collins

The applicant union applied for certification to displace an incumbent union.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing certification long after the terminal date, requesting an extension due to alleged lack of information and delay in the proceedings.

The Board refused to extend the terminal date, emphasizing the need for a fixed point in time to ascertain employee wishes and noting that mere passage of time or change of heart does not justify an extension.

Furthermore, because the incumbent union had abandoned its bargaining rights, the Board declined to order a representation vote and granted outright certification based on the applicant's membership evidence.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees.

The parties disputed whether part-time employees (working not more than 24 hours per week) should be excluded from the unit.

The employer argued for exclusion based on a single instance where a full-time employee temporarily worked part-time after returning from maternity leave.

The Board held that this isolated instance did not constitute a history of part-time employment.

Consequently, the Board included part-time employees in the full-time bargaining unit and issued a formal certificate.

The complainant filed a complaint alleging the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under sections 68 and 70 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to process her wrongful dismissal grievance.

The respondent moved to dismiss the complaint due to extreme delay, as it was filed 19 months after the complainant's termination.

The Board found that the delay was extreme and without mitigating circumstances, causing prejudice to the respondent's ability to present a defense.

The Board exercised its discretion to refuse to entertain the complaint and dismissed it.

The Board continued a successorship application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act following the sale of a nursing home business to the respondent.

The parties were unable to agree on a re-staffing model for the integrated facility prior to a representation vote.

The Board determined that the representation vote would be confined to the Nursing Home portion of the facility, excluding the Rest Home.

The Board established an arbitrary staffing model, allocating 70% of the Nurse's Aide hours to the predecessor's business and requiring a 1.1 full-time to part-time scheduling ratio, and directed the respondent to proceed with re-staffing immediately.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of the respondent's employees.

The issue before the Board was whether four control room operators were 'guards' under section 12 of the Labour Relations Act and thus excluded from the unit.

Applying the conflict of interest test, the Board found that the operators' duties, which included monitoring other employees and reporting security incidents, created a real possibility of a conflict of interest.

The Board concluded the operators were guards, excluded them from the applicant's unit, and issued a final certificate for the remaining employees.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description.

The union demonstrated membership support of 75% (86 out of 114 employees).

The respondent employer requested a representation vote, arguing that a projected build-up of the workforce to 244 employees warranted delaying certification.

The Board applied the build-up principle but found that the current workforce was sufficiently representative and the union enjoyed sufficient support to warrant immediate certification without a vote.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent equipment operators employed by the respondent in the construction industry.

The union filed membership evidence for more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit.

The respondent employer requested that the Board exercise its discretion to direct a representation vote, arguing that there was an impending build-up of the workforce, that employees were not told the membership documents would be used for certification, and that the union misrepresented the effects of certification.

The Board rejected these arguments, noting its practice in the construction industry of not considering future workforce build-ups, and finding no fundamental misrepresentation or coercion by the union.

The Board declined to direct a vote and certified the union outright.

The union filed a grievance and an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer for persistently failing to remit benefit fund contributions as required by the collective agreement.

The employer failed to appear at the hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's repetitive and intentional refusal to fulfill its clear contractual obligations constituted a violation of section 50 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the employer to pay the wrongfully withheld amounts, interest, surcharges, and the union's costs of collection, and directed the employer to post a notice of its violations.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of employees in the respondent's Distribution Services Division.

The respondent argued that the Board lacked constitutional jurisdiction because its transportation operations extended interprovincially, falling under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act.

The Board found that the respondent was not a common carrier and its transportation operations were merely an in-house delivery arm integrated into its primary business of buying and selling goods.

Therefore, the operations fell under provincial jurisdiction.

The Board appointed a Board Officer to inquire into the duties and status of several challenged employees.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer failed to hire the grievor, a black carpenter, because of his race or colour, contrary to the collective agreement.

The grievor had repeatedly applied for work at a construction site and was told there was no work, but minutes later a white carpenter was hired.

The employer claimed the white carpenter was hired because the superintendent knew his work from a previous project.

The Board found the employer's explanation lacked credibility, noting inconsistencies in the superintendent's testimony and his failure to acknowledge the grievor's recent employment with the same employer.

The Board concluded that the refusal to hire was discriminatory and upheld the grievance, remaining seized of the remedy.

The applicants, four fire alarm technicians, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union raised a jurisdictional challenge, arguing the applicants were 'full-time fire fighters' under the Fire Departments Act and thus excluded from the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the three full-time technicians performed duties integral to fire protection and fell within the statutory definition of full-time fire fighters, excluding them from the Act.

However, the Board held that the single part-time technician was not excluded and allowed the termination application to proceed with respect to her alone.

The applicant union sought consent to institute a prosecution against the employer for alleged violations of section 75(1) of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act.

The union alleged that the employer interfered with its representation rights by restructuring an Academic Committee to include bargainable issues and by communicating directly with faculty members.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding no prima facie case of interference.

The Board held that the committee's recommendatory nature and the employer's communications fell within the scope of management functions and protected employer free speech, respectively.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed petitions objecting to the certification.

The Board found that the union had submitted sufficient membership evidence (over 55%) to be certified without a vote, and that the overlap between the petition signatures and the membership evidence was insufficient to cast doubt on the union's majority support.

The objectors raised late allegations of coercion and intimidation regarding the collection of membership evidence.

The Board refused to entertain the late allegations, noting they lacked timely particulars and relied on hearsay.

The Board granted the application and issued a certificate.

The applicant sought to set aside a representation vote that resulted in the union retaining its bargaining rights, alleging that the union circulated misleading pre-vote propaganda.

The applicant claimed the propaganda falsely characterized the vote as a union versus management scenario and suggested employees' jobs would be in jeopardy if the union were decertified.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the alleged statements were not of such a nature that they would overpower the critical faculties of the employee voters.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent unrepresented trades employed by the respondent in Board Area #5.

The respondent requested that casual employees who regularly work outside the area be excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board declined to depart from its long-standing practice of not distinguishing between casual and regular employees in the construction industry.

Finding that more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit were members of the applicant, the Board ordered that a certificate issue.

The complainant union alleged that the employer committed unfair labour practices under sections 64 and 67(1) of the Labour Relations Act by communicating directly with bargaining unit employees regarding a proposed extension agreement.

The employer had sought to negotiate an extension agreement with the union to match a competitor's terms, but the union refused to meet.

The employer subsequently sent letters to employees and had management personnel speak with employees on the plant floor.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer did not attempt to bargain directly with the employees and that the communications were protected by the employer's freedom of expression under section 64, as they did not involve coercion, intimidation, threats, promises, or undue influence.

The union won a representation vote for certification.

The employer sought to set aside the election, arguing that four people who cast ballots were not entitled to vote.

On the day of the vote, the parties had signed a waiver agreeing that the four individuals were eligible to vote and waiving any objections.

The employer later argued that one of the individuals was a student and therefore excluded from the bargaining unit, and that the waiver was signed through inadvertence.

The Board held that the waiver superseded the earlier voters' list agreement and declined to release the employer from its waiver, emphasizing the importance of finality in representation votes.

The Board issued a certificate to the union.