Lee Shouldice

The union applied for certification for two of the employer's grocery stores.

The employer and a group of objecting employees raised preliminary issues regarding the timeliness of petition documents, the sufficiency of the union's membership evidence, and the propriety of the union's campaign literature.

The Board ruled that the petition in the first file was untimely, but the petition in the second file was timely.

The Board dismissed the employer's objections to the membership evidence, finding that the lack of a witness signature and the pre-signing of the receiver's line did not invalidate the cards.

The Board also found that the union's campaign literature did not improperly trade on the Board's neutrality.

The Board certified the union for the first store and directed a further hearing for the second store.

The union filed a construction grievance alleging the employer failed to pay wage increases under the Provincial Agreement.

The employer argued the Social Contract Act applied, freezing compensation, and that the Board lacked jurisdiction due to the Act's adjudication provisions.

The Board held it had jurisdiction to interpret the application of the Act to the collective agreement.

The Board found the Social Contract Act applied to the ICI sector employees of the school board.

However, for two grievors earning less than $30,000 annually from the employer, the Act's 'fail safe' wage freeze did not apply, and they were entitled to the negotiated wage increases.

The responding party employer sought reconsideration of a Board decision certifying the applicant union.

The employer argued it failed to file a response because the application package from the Board was missing the response form, and a Board clerk allegedly advised that returning the notice of posting was sufficient.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding the employer failed to exercise reasonable diligence.

The application notice clearly warned of the consequences of failing to file a response, and the employer should have contacted the Board for clarification rather than relying on incomplete information or a clerk's comments.

In a displacement application for certification, the applicant union sought to represent a single comprehensive bargaining unit combining the incumbent union's separate full-time and part-time units.

The Board found that the incumbent held bargaining rights for two separate units, but concluded that the applicant's proposed combined unit was appropriate for collective bargaining due to the interconnected nature of the existing collective agreements.

The Board also ruled that probationary employees were included in the bargaining units and entitled to vote.

The applicant, Ensign Security Services Inc., acquired security contracts at three sites in Ottawa previously held by Pinkerton's and Burns.

The United Steelworkers of America held bargaining rights for the predecessor employers' employees, while the Canadian Security Union held municipal-wide bargaining rights for Ensign's employees.

Ensign applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under sections 64 and 64.2 of the Labour Relations Act to resolve the conflict in bargaining rights resulting from the intermingling of employees.

The Board found that section 64.2 acts as a doorway to section 64, and does not mandate site-specific bargaining rights that override broader-based rights.

To avoid severe fragmentation and administrative difficulties, the Board declared that Ensign is no longer bound by the predecessor's collective agreement with the Steelworkers, and that the Canadian Security Union is the bargaining agent for all Ensign security guards in the region.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by laying off the grievor before he could accumulate six months of service, which would have entitled him to industry-wide seniority.

The union argued that the six-month period could be aggregated from separate periods of employment and, alternatively, that the employer acted in bad faith to prevent the grievor from attaining seniority.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement required a single, continuous six-month period of employment to attain seniority.

The Board also found insufficient evidence to establish that the employer acted in bad faith in its layoff decisions.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant claimed the union improperly withdrew an overtime grievance, poorly drafted a grievance regarding sick pay and legal fees following criminal charges, and failed to consult him regarding a workplace transfer.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union reasonably relied on a legal opinion when withdrawing the overtime grievance, that the sick pay grievance was understood and resolved, and that the union promptly corrected the transfer issue when notified.

The Board concluded there was no evidence of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union.

The union applied for an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to reinstate three employees who were terminated during a union organizing campaign.

The Board found that the union established an arguable case that the terminations violated the Act.

Applying the balance of harm test, the Board declined to reinstate one employee due to significant health and safety risks associated with his operation of a forklift.

However, the Board ordered the interim reinstatement of the other two employees, finding that the harm to the union's organizing campaign outweighed the employer's concerns regarding their alleged workplace misconduct.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a deemed sale of a business occurred under section 64.2 of the Labour Relations Act when the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place leased a building to Medieval Times.

Medieval Times subsequently contracted out cleaning services to a non-unionized company, whereas the union had previously cleaned the building for the Board of Governors.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the transaction constituted a deemed sale of a business, finding that the 'premises' encompassed the entirety of Exhibition Place, that the employer had ceased in part to provide services at those premises, and that substantially similar services were subsequently provided under the direction of another employer.

Medieval Times was declared bound by the union's notice to bargain.

The applicant union applied for certification and a representation vote was held, resulting in a tie.

The union subsequently objected to the vote, arguing that one voter was managerial and another eligible employee was omitted from the voter's list.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the objections without an oral hearing, finding that the union had signed a Consent and Waiver Form agreeing to count the first voter's ballot and had agreed to the voter's list prior to the vote.

The Board held that it would be inequitable and an abuse of process to allow the union to resile from its agreements.

The application for certification was dismissed.

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

The responding party employer argued that the Deputy Treasurer and the Works Supervisor should be excluded from the bargaining unit under section 1(3) of the Labour Relations Act because they exercised managerial functions or were employed in a confidential capacity.

The Board reviewed the evidence and found that neither individual exercised sufficient independent decision-making authority or had regular, material involvement in confidential labour relations matters to warrant exclusion.

Both individuals were found to be employees for the purposes of the Act, and a certificate was issued to the applicant.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied for certification to represent Case Managers employed by the Hamilton Program for Schizophrenia Inc. The parties agreed on all matters except the bargaining unit description.

The applicant sought a unit limited to Case Managers who are Registered and Graduate Nurses, while the responding party argued for a unit of all Case Managers.

The Board found that the applicant's proposed unit would cause serious labour relations problems due to fragmentation, applying the test from Hospital for Sick Children.

The Board determined that a unit of all Case Managers was appropriate and, as more than 55% of the employees in that unit had applied for membership, issued a certificate to the applicant.

The union applied for an interim order to reinstate 28 employees who were laid off when the employer contracted out its warehousing operations.

The union alleged the employer made representations during collective bargaining that it would not contract out the work.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the balance of harm favoured the employer.

The harm to the employees was primarily financial and could be remedied by a final order, whereas the employer would suffer significant, unrecoverable financial harm and disruption if forced to reverse its contracting out arrangements on an interim basis.

The union's delay in bringing the application also weighed against granting relief.

The responding party failed to attend a construction industry grievance hearing, resulting in a decision against it.

The responding party subsequently requested that the decision be withheld, claiming it was misinformed by the union about the hearing time.

The Board treated the request as one for reconsideration under section 108(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board denied the request, finding that the responding party had received formal notice of the hearing time from the Board and that relying on the union's alleged representation was done at its own risk.