Lita-Rose Betcherman

The applicants, employees of Fern Brand Waxes Ltd., applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union challenged the termination petition because 12 of the 22 signatures consisted of only first or last names, arguing this did not meet the formal requirements of the Board's Rule 73.

The Board found that the employees clearly intended the incomplete signatures to represent their names and that the petition was signed knowingly and voluntarily.

The Board accepted the petition and ordered a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, finding the incomplete signatures invalid.

The complainant alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to process a timely individual grievance after the employer refused to recall him following a strike.

The union had filed an improper policy grievance and failed to forward the complainant's medical clearance to the employer.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union's conduct demonstrated an indifferent and non-caring attitude towards the complainant.

The Board ordered the union to refile the grievance and the employer to process it without objection to timeliness.

The complainants, four warehouse employees, refused to work due to a noxious odour emanating from a shipment of Italian wallpaper, which caused them headaches and nausea.

After an inspector issued an interim order requiring the employer to provide respirators, the employer failed to promptly recall the employees and subsequently dismissed two of them.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employees had reasonable grounds to refuse the work under section 23 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board held that the employer violated section 24 of the Act by penalizing the employees and dismissing two of them in reprisal for exercising their rights.

The Board ordered reinstatement and compensation for lost wages.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated the statutory freeze period and interfered with the union's administration by unilaterally reducing employee hours and dealing directly with employees.

The employer, a newly acquired nursing home, implemented staffing changes resulting in reduced hours for several employees without the union's consent.

The Board found that the collective agreement did not give the employer the right to unilaterally establish new normal hours of work.

The Board held that the employer violated the statutory freeze and interfered with the union by bypassing it to deal directly with employees.

The employer was ordered to compensate affected employees.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the statutory freeze by eliminating part-time switchboard positions and violated the reprisal provisions by discharging an employee who attended an arbitration hearing.

The Board found that the employer violated the section 79 statutory freeze by unilaterally transferring work out of the bargaining unit without an established prior pattern.

However, the Board dismissed the section 80 reprisal complaint, finding the employee was discharged for her disruptive outburst during the arbitration hearing and her poor employment record, rather than for her mere attendance as an observer.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of drivers and warehousemen at the respondent's Hamilton location, and requested the inclusion of employees at the Oakville and St. Catharines branches, as well as two order desk dispatchers at Hamilton.

The respondent argued for separate bargaining units for each location and claimed the dispatchers were managerial.

The Board held that the geographical scope should include all three locations due to a strong community of interest and the viability of a larger unit.

The Board also found that the two dispatchers did not exercise effective control over the drivers' employment relationship and were therefore employees, not managers.

A formal certificate was issued for the combined unit.

One Board member dissented.