L. Collins

The complainants, academic employees at Sheridan College, alleged that their union (OPSEU) breached its duty of fair representation under section 76 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act during the 1984 negotiations.

They claimed the union bargained in bad faith with the employer and intentionally misled the membership regarding its bargaining demands, specifically concerning a workload formula, to precipitate a strike.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint.

The Board held that employees lack status to enforce the union's duty to bargain in good faith with the employer.

Furthermore, the Board found that the union's bargaining tactics, including its refusal to receive a late offer from the employer to avoid triggering a mandatory vote that would disrupt a scheduled strike vote, did not constitute arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct toward the employees.

The Board also concluded that the union's communications with the membership did not amount to fundamental misrepresentation.

The applicant sought an exemption from paying union dues to OPSEU under section 53 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, citing religious objections to the union's affiliation with the Ontario Federation of Labour (OFL), which had passed pro-choice resolutions and made donations to a pro-choice organization.

The applicant also alleged a breach of the duty of fair representation.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the duty of fair representation complaint did not involve representation in relation to the employer.

Regarding the religious exemption, the Board held that OPSEU's mere affiliation with the OFL and the OFL's actions were too remote to establish that the applicant objected to paying dues to OPSEU because of his religious convictions.

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

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description, excluding the assistant manager due to managerial authority.

The applicant filed valid membership evidence for more than fifty-five percent of the employees.

However, a group of objecting employees filed a timely petition in opposition to the union, which included signatures of employees who had previously signed membership cards.

The Board determined it was necessary to hear evidence on the voluntariness of the petition to decide whether to exercise its discretion to order a representation vote.

The union applied for a declaration that several corporate respondents constituted a single employer under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively, that a sale of a business occurred under s. 63 following a corporate reorganization.

The Board found that the companies were not under common control or direction and did not engage in related activities, dismissing the s. 1(4) application.

However, the Board found that a sale of a business had occurred with respect to the plant employees of Marson Canada Inc., Swingline/Rexel Inc., and Wilson Jones, Division of Acme Seeley Inc. The Board found no sale of a business regarding the office employees of Swingline/Rexel Inc. and Wilson Jones, as they were newly hired or performing different functions, but did find a sale regarding Marson Canada Inc.'s office employees.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of part-time employees and students at the respondent hospital.

The parties agreed on the unit description except for the inclusion of students employed during the school vacation period.

The respondent argued that students lacked a community of interest or, alternatively, that a representation vote should be deferred until the summer when students were employed.

The Board declined to defer the vote based on the build-up principle and granted interim certification for the agreed-upon unit, excluding students pending a final determination of the bargaining unit composition.

The Board issued procedural directions for the exchange of pleadings and documents to resolve the outstanding issue.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A high percentage of employees signed union cards, but a similarly high percentage subsequently signed a petition opposing certification.

The Board heard evidence regarding the circumstances of the petition's circulation to determine if it represented a voluntary change of mind.

Despite some management inquiries, the Board found the change of mind was spontaneous and not initiated by management.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 7(2) of the Act to order a representation vote.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent company bargained in bad faith by refusing to sign a collective agreement based on a May 2 offer that the union purported to accept on October 25, after a lengthy strike.

The union also alleged that the company's discharge and suspension of several employees on October 25 was an unlawful attempt to avoid a collective agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the May 2 offer had been extinguished by the passage of time and the intervening strike.

The Board also found that the disciplinary actions were a lawful attempt to make the discharges inarbitrable under the anticipated collective agreement, rather than an unlawful attempt to avoid an agreement.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer argued that an existing collective agreement with the Center Tool Employees Organization barred the application, or alternatively, that a representation vote should be held.

The Board found that the Center Tool Employees Organization lacked a formal constitution, membership requirements, and mutual obligations among employees, and therefore was not a 'trade union' within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act.

As the applicant had the support of approximately two-thirds of the bargaining unit, the Board granted certification without directing a representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of sheet metal workers employed by the respondent in the construction industry.

The Board found that because sheet metal work is a compulsorily certified trade under the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification Act, the appropriate bargaining unit must be restricted to journeymen sheet metal workers and registered sheet metal apprentices.

The Board excluded several employees who did not hold the required qualifications and granted the certification certificates based on the union's membership support.

The complainant, a member of the respondent union, filed a complaint under section 85 of the Labour Relations Act seeking the release of the union's audited financial statements.

The union opposed the complaint, arguing that the complainant was acting as an agent for a rival union, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW), which she actively supported.

The Board held that the complainant's support for a rival union did not disentitle her to access the financial information of her own union under section 85.

The Board ordered the respondent union to deliver the audited financial statements to the complainant.

The applicant union filed a construction industry grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer violated the collective agreement by hiring members of Local 675 instead of Local 18 for drywall work.

At the outset of the hearing, the respondent requested an adjournment because Local 675 had not received notice of the proceedings.

The Board granted the adjournment, finding that Local 675's members could be adversely affected by the outcome and that their interests could not be adequately represented by the mutual employee bargaining agency or the respondent employer.

The applicant union applied under section 63(6) of the Labour Relations Act, arguing that following the respondent city's purchase of a transit business five and a half years earlier, there had been sufficient intermingling of employees to warrant a declaration altering bargaining rights.

The Board dismissed the application, holding that section 63(6) is designed to address representational problems closely related in time to a sale.

Given the significant lapse of time and the fact that collective agreements had been negotiated in the interim, the Board found it inappropriate to exercise its discretion, noting that any current representational conflicts should be resolved through grievance arbitration or jurisdictional dispute proceedings.

The union brought an application for a declaration of a successor employer and an unfair labour practice complaint following the transfer of a nursing home licence from an insolvent operator, through a receiver-manager, to Caressant Care.

The Board found that the transfer of the licence constituted a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also determined that Caressant Care was the true employer during the interim management period.

However, the Board dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint, finding no improper motive in Caressant Care's offer of part-time employment to the former employees.

Due to the intermingling of employees from the unionized and non-unionized operations, the Board ordered a representation vote.

The union applied for certification and requested automatic certification under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging employer interference.

The Board found that three department managers violated section 64 by directing employees during working hours to sign an anti-union petition.

However, the Board concluded that the employer's conduct was not so severe as to prevent the true wishes of the employees from being ascertained in a representation vote.

The Board ordered remedial measures, including a cease and desist order, a workplace posting, and union access to employees, and directed that a representation vote be held.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued several decisions regarding applications for certification and unfair labour practice complaints.

In the first case, the Board found that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act when three managers obtained signatures on a petition opposing the trade union.

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

Other decisions addressed the appropriate bargaining unit for a specialized business centre in a department store, a duty of fair representation complaint involving municipal technical employees, a sale of a business application concerning a retail food store, and the exclusion of a chemical control supervisor from a bargaining unit based on community of interest.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection that the applicant was not bound to a collective agreement with it.

The Board found that the employer was bound to a collective agreement with Local 1089, not the applicant Local 1059.

The Board held that the applicant had no jurisdiction to refer the grievance because it was not a party to the collective agreement.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer breached a written settlement of an earlier unfair labour practice complaint by failing to pay agreed-upon compensation to three reinstated employees.

The employer argued the settlement was void because the employees resigned shortly after returning to work, which contravened the employer's unexpressed expectation of stability.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the clear, unambiguous terms of a written settlement cannot be repudiated based on unstated expectations or subsequent events not addressed in the agreement.

The Board directed the employer to pay the specified sums.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees at the respondent's plant.

A group of employees filed a statement of desire opposing the certification.

The union initially alleged employer interference but withdrew those allegations.

The Board inquired into the origination and circulation of the statement of desire.

The Board found that the employees who circulated the petition acted on their own views and that the employer maintained a hands-off policy, only intervening to stop discussions when production was affected.

The Board concluded the statement of desire represented the voluntary wishes of the employees and ordered a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, finding that management favoured the objectors.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed an unfair labour practice by refusing to discharge two employees who had been expelled from the union for failing to pay a fine.

The fine was levied after the employees were observed speaking to the employer's president during a lockout.

The employer argued that under the collective agreement, 'membership in good standing' was defined solely by the payment of dues, which were still being deducted.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding the employer's interpretation of the collective agreement reasonable and not motivated by any intention to interfere with the union's internal affairs.

The complainant school board alleged that a mass resignation by summer school principals, vice-principals, and curriculum resource teachers constituted an unlawful strike under the Labour Relations Act, and that the teachers' union encouraged it.

The union had issued a 'pink letter' advising members not to accept summer positions due to a collective bargaining impasse.

The Board found that the resignees were employees who had already commenced preparatory duties, and their coordinated resignations to exert bargaining pressure amounted to an unlawful strike.

The Board issued a cease and desist direction against the union and its District 16 president for counselling and supporting the unlawful strike.