M. A. F. Stockton

The union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the employer contravened the collective agreement by failing to recall a long-term employee after a layoff.

The collective agreement required the employer to exercise its management rights in a 'fair and reasonable' manner.

The Board found that the employer's continued assurances to the grievor that he would be recalled, while secretly deciding not to recall him, demonstrated a serious lack of regard and violated the fairness requirement.

The Board ordered compensation for the grievor.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the grievor was dismissed when the respondent employer failed to recall him from a layoff.

The respondent raised several preliminary objections, including that the grievor lacked status as an employee, notice requirements were not met, the grievance was untimely, and the collective agreement contained no recall rights.

The Board dismissed all preliminary objections, finding that the grievor's status could not be determined without hearing the merits, the notice provided was sufficient, there were reasonable grounds to extend the time limits, and the grievance disclosed a cause of action with some chance of success.

The matter was directed to proceed on its merits.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer bargained in bad faith during negotiations following a lengthy and unsuccessful strike.

The union argued that the employer's proposals, which included a less generous monetary offer than before the strike and a demand that the union withdraw pending unfair labour practice complaints, were illegal and designed to avoid a collective agreement.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer was engaging in hard bargaining based on its superior bargaining power.

While the Board noted that an employer cannot use its bargaining power to compel the withdrawal of statutory complaints, it found that the union had not unequivocally refused to negotiate the issue or demanded its removal from the table, but had instead offered its own compromises.