L. Hemsworth

The complainants alleged that the respondent union locals violated a written settlement of an earlier unfair labour practice complaint regarding the integration of seniority lists following a hospital merger.

The settlement required the union to hold specific meetings to recommend integrated seniority before a ratification vote.

The Board found that the union executive held additional, exclusionary meetings that undermined the settlement, thereby violating section 89(7) of the Labour Relations Act.

The majority of the Board ordered that the integrated seniority lists be implemented as if the vote had succeeded, while the Vice-Chairman dissented on remedy, preferring to set aside the settlement and hear the original complaint on its merits.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit consisting solely of employees in the respondent's Social Services Department.

The respondent opposed the application, arguing that a departmental unit would unduly fragment the workforce, which consisted of multiple departments.

The Board found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for a departmental bargaining unit and dismissed the application.

The complainants, employees at the respondent's plant, refused to work due to the smell of gasoline fumes.

The respondent sent the refusing employees home without pay pending a Ministry of Labour investigation.

One complainant, Arnold, alleged he was intimidated by his foreman who repeatedly ordered him back to work and threatened to stop his pay.

The Board found that the respondent violated section 24(1)(d) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by intimidating Arnold, as the foreman's actions negated his statutory right to refuse unsafe work.

However, the Board dismissed the complaint regarding the loss of pay for the other refusers, finding that sending them home was a practical response to a lack of work and not a penalty under section 24(1)(c).

The applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of a business occurred between J. B. Carroll Electric Limited and Carroll Electric (1982) Limited, or alternatively, that they were related employers.

The Board found that the core of the predecessor's business, including customers, inventory, and employees, was transferred to the newly incorporated company, which was formed by the son of the predecessor's owner partly to avoid collective bargaining obligations.

The Board declared that a sale of a business had taken place under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, binding the new company to the collective agreement.

The respondent employer sought reconsideration of a prior Board decision that directed the counting of ballots cast in a pre-hearing representation vote.

The employer sought to relitigate the eligibility of certain seasonal employees to vote.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the employer was attempting to adduce evidence and arguments that could have been raised at the initial hearing.

The Board confirmed the results of the vote, found the applicant to be a trade union, and issued a certificate.

The complainants alleged that the respondent terminated Margaret O'Connor's employment because she testified at an arbitration hearing, contrary to section 80 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent argued that an arbitration hearing is not a 'proceeding under this Act' and therefore section 80 did not apply.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that a board of arbitration or sole arbitrator is a statutory tribunal constituted under the Act, and thus a hearing before such a tribunal is a 'proceeding under this Act'.

Consequently, witnesses at arbitration hearings are protected against reprisals.

The complaint was adjourned sine die at the request of the parties.

The complainant, a union member, was fined $1,000 by his union for supporting a rival union's displacement campaign.

He filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging violations of sections 3 and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

At the hearing, the complainant's counsel explicitly withdrew any reliance on section 80(2)(b), which specifically prohibits unions from imposing penalties on persons for exercising rights under the Act.

The Board found that while the complainant had a right to participate in the rival union's campaign, the mere imposition of a disciplinary fine did not constitute 'intimidation or coercion' within the meaning of section 70.

Because the complainant had abandoned the section 80(2)(b) claim, and the Board refused a post-hearing request to reopen the case to argue it, the complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union applied under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act alleging the respondents failed to comply with a collective agreement.

The union served subpoenas on two witnesses, who failed to appear at two scheduled hearings.

The union requested a bench warrant to ensure their attendance.

The Board, acting under section 103(2)(a) of the Act, found it had the authority to enforce the attendance of witnesses in the same manner as a court of record in civil cases.

Satisfied that the witnesses were properly served and their evidence was material, the Board issued a warrant for their arrest to bring them before the Board.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote for employees of several construction companies.

The respondents and intervener raised complex issues, including whether the companies were related employers under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act and whether the intervener already held bargaining rights.

Despite these complexities, the Board directed a pre-hearing vote to ensure employees could vote before the construction workforce dispersed.

To accommodate the unresolved issue of the intervener's bargaining rights, the Board ordered a unique two-ballot procedure, with all ballots segregated and sealed pending a future hearing.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent carpenters employed by the respondent.

The respondent challenged the union's membership evidence, alleging it was obtained through false statements.

The Board found the membership evidence valid, noting the employees voluntarily signed the applications and paid the required fee.

A statement of desire opposing the union was also filed, but the Board declined to give it weight, finding it was not a voluntary expression of the employee's wishes due to management influence.

The Board granted the application and issued a certificate to the applicant.

The applicant employee applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights under section 59(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The union had failed to give the employer notice to bargain within sixty days following certification.

The union did not file a reply and failed to appear at the hearing.

The Board found that the union had slept on its bargaining rights and provided no explanation for its failure to exercise them.

The Board exercised its discretion to terminate the union's bargaining rights without a representation vote.

In an application for certification, the employer objected to the union reviewing the employee list, arguing it could be used for future organizing and that employees wished to remain anonymous.

The Board ruled that the union must be given access to the list to verify its accuracy, as the Board relies on it to determine union support.

The Board also ruled that the union could review the list without management present to protect the secrecy of union membership and solicitor-client privilege.

A representation vote was ordered.

The complainant, a union member, alleged that the respondent trade union failed to provide him with an adequate audited financial statement upon request, contrary to section 76 of the Labour Relations Act.

Specifically, the complainant sought detailed information regarding lost time wages, expenses, salaries, and entertainment.

The Board heard expert accounting evidence that the financial statement provided was adequate and conformed to professional standards.

The Board found that the union had satisfied the statutory requirements and that the complainant could seek the detailed information he desired through the union's internal procedures at monthly membership meetings.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union applied under section 73(2) of the Labour Relations Act for consent to continue its supervision over its subordinate local.

The Board found that the local had become so torn by dissent that it could not function properly, with severe disruption occurring at meetings.

The applicant proposed a plan of action, including the temporary exclusion of three disruptive members from meetings and the appointment of a pro tem executive to transition back to local autonomy.

The Board found the plan reasonable and granted consent to continue supervision until February 28, 1981, conditional upon the applicant fulfilling its undertakings.