L M. Stamp

The complainants filed a work assignment complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the assignment of work functions associated with a new High Impact Welding process on a pipeline construction project.

The work had been assigned to the respondent union and others.

The Board considered criteria including collective bargaining relationships, skill and training, area past practice, and economy and efficiency.

The Board directed that the work be divided, assigning tasks related to explosives handling and detonation to the complainants, and tasks related to pipe preparation, belling, and final wiping to the respondent union.

The Board convened a hearing to resolve implementation issues arising from its prior decision, which found the employer had unlawfully discharged a key union organizer.

The employer had refused to distribute the Board's decision to all employees, prompting the Board to clarify that individual delivery at the employer's expense was required.

On the issue of compensation, the employer argued the grievor failed to mitigate her damages.

The Board held that the duty to mitigate in unfair labour practice cases differs from wrongful dismissal, as the employee expects reinstatement and may continue union activities.

Finding the grievor made reasonable efforts to mitigate, the Board awarded $11,007.47 in lost wages and benefits.

Claims for general damages for mental distress and costs were denied.

The applicant sought a declaration that its collective agreement with Local 2693 was unlawful and void under the Labour Relations Act, as Local 2693 was an affiliated bargaining agent and the agreement was not a provincial agreement.

Local 2693 requested an adjournment pending a Ministerial designation or reconsideration of a prior Board decision that found it to be an affiliated bargaining agent.

The Board denied the adjournment.

Applying the doctrine of res judicata, the Board held that the prior decision determining Local 2693's status was a decision in rem and therefore binding.

Consequently, the Board declared the collective agreement unlawful, null, and void.

The applicant trade union filed four applications for certification in the construction industry.

The Board found that the applicant already held bargaining rights for all the employees in the requested bargaining units under existing provincial agreements.

Because there were no unrepresented employees in any of the bargaining units on the date of application, and the applications were not made during the open periods of the collective agreements, the Board dismissed all four applications.

The applicant union sought certification for security guards employed by the respondent.

The respondent challenged the Ontario Labour Relations Board's jurisdiction, arguing its operations fell under federal jurisdiction.

The Board found that over 90% of the respondent's security services were provided to Federal Government departments and agencies, including tasks essential to their operation such as emergency evacuations and guarding sensitive areas.

Applying constitutional principles, the Board concluded that these services play a vital and integral role in federal operations, placing the labour relations of these employees within federal jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The union brought an application under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine the bargaining unit status of a newly appointed payroll supervisor.

The employer argued the position should be excluded under section 1(3)(b) because the incumbent exercised managerial functions and was employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

The Board found that the payroll supervisor did not exercise sufficient independent decision-making authority over subordinates to warrant a managerial exclusion.

However, the Board concluded that the incumbent's advisory role regarding the implementation of wage increases and budget preparation involved a regular, material involvement in confidential labour relations matters.

Consequently, the Board held that the payroll supervisor must be excluded from the bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The respondent employer argued the bargaining unit should be limited to the residential sector.

The Board ruled that the unit applied for, relating to the industrial, commercial and institutional sector, was appropriate under s. 144(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board appointed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the employee status of several individuals.

The Board also declined to conduct its own inquiry into an allegation of conditional payment for union membership, ruling that the respondent must prove the allegation in the ordinary course.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated the duty to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act.

The parties had agreed on the effective commencement date of a one-year collective agreement during mediation.

Following a strike, the union ratified the agreement based on this understanding.

The employer subsequently refused to sign the agreement, claiming the commencement date had never been agreed upon.

The Board found the employer's testimony unreliable, concluded that an agreement on the date had been reached, and held that reneging on this agreed term after ratification constituted bad faith bargaining.

The employer was directed to execute the collective agreement.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer laid off several employees and held a captive audience meeting in response to a union organizing campaign.

The Board found that the employer became aware of the organizing activities and laid off four employees, including the key organizers, motivated at least in part by anti-union animus.

The Board also found that statements made by management at a captive audience meeting constituted unlawful threats and promises.

The Board ordered reinstatement and compensation for the affected employees, a posting and mailing of a notice, and union access to the workplace.

The Board further found that the union had sufficient membership support to be certified without a representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification for two bargaining units (full-time and part-time) at the respondent's workplace.

The respondent argued that a representation vote should be ordered because it planned to double its workforce in the coming months.

The Board found that the current employees in both units constituted at least fifty percent of the anticipated workforce and were therefore sufficiently representative.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and issued certificates to the applicant for both bargaining units.

The complainant, a millwright discharged after an altercation with management, alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation by refusing to take his discharge grievance to arbitration.

The union had negotiated a full total disability pension for the complainant, believing his grievance had little chance of success given the evidence against him and his prior disciplinary record.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union had fairly considered the merits of the grievance and acted in the complainant's best interest without arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit but disputed whether sixteen employees laid off on the morning of the application date should be included in the count.

The employees had reported for work with a reasonable expectation of working but were given termination notices before their shift began.

Applying established Board jurisprudence, the Board held that the employees should be included in the count.

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

The intervener union sought to set aside a pre-hearing representation vote, arguing that a letter circulated by the respondent employer and subsequently used in the applicant union's campaign propaganda improperly affected the employees' ability to freely choose their representative.

The Board dismissed the objection, finding that the propaganda did not overpower the critical faculties of the employee voters.

The Board certified the applicant union, as it received more than fifty-five percent of the ballots cast.