M. A. Nairn

The applicant applied to terminate the responding party union's bargaining rights for employees of the intervenor employer.

The application encompassed two bargaining units: one for the ICI sector and one for service and maintenance work, which included both construction and non-construction work.

The union argued that the application could only deal with construction industry bargaining rights and that the Board had no jurisdiction to order a vote for the non-ICI sectors.

The Board held that an application to terminate bargaining rights must be based on the bargaining unit defined in the collective agreement, even if it encompasses both construction and non-construction work.

The Board further determined that construction industry rules apply to such mixed units and that one application form can cover two bargaining units.

The Board directed a representation vote for the service and maintenance unit and declared the union's bargaining rights terminated for the ICI sector based on a previous vote.

The applicant filed an application for review of an order to pay under the Employment Standards Act but failed to pay the required monies into trust.

The applicant requested an extension of time to pay the funds into trust.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the request, holding that its discretion under section 68(4) is to extend the time for applying for a review, not to extend the time for paying monies into trust, and that an application is not properly made until the funds are paid.

Furthermore, the applicant's bare assertion of an inability to pay was insufficient to warrant an extension.

The applicant school board applied under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 to determine the number and descriptions of bargaining units following the amalgamation of three predecessor boards.

The Board determined that bus drivers should be included in the larger custodial and maintenance bargaining unit to avoid fragmentation.

The Board also determined that educational assistants should form a separate bargaining unit, given their distinct skill set and the potential for labour relations problems if included in the office and clerical unit.

Representation votes were ordered for three of the four established bargaining units.

The applicant brought an application to terminate the responding party's bargaining rights in the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector of the construction industry.

The applicant was not at work in the bargaining unit on the date of application because he was receiving Workers' Compensation benefits.

The applicant argued that denying him the right to bring the application based on his injury was discriminatory under the Human Rights Code and the Charter.

The Board dismissed the application, reaffirming its established jurisprudence that a person must be employed performing work in the bargaining unit on the date of application to bring or vote in such an application.

The Board noted that the reason for the absence is irrelevant and that granting the application would give the applicant greater rights than able-bodied persons absent for other reasons.

The applicant, a correctional officer, was suspended after refusing to perform full duties in a young offender unit, citing medical restrictions from a recent injury.

The employer had withdrawn an offer of modified duties based on a Workers' Compensation Board finding that the applicant was fit for full duties, ignoring a mandatory medical examination report that outlined specific restrictions.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant was acting in compliance with and seeking enforcement of the Occupational Health and Safety Act when he asserted a health and safety risk and refused the assignment.

The Board concluded that the employer violated section 50(1) of the OHSA by suspending the applicant and ordered full compensation for lost wages and benefits.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to displace the incumbent union.

The issue was whether the application was timely.

The parties were subject to the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA) and an interest arbitration board had issued an award that remitted the issue of lay-off and recall language back to the parties for negotiation.

The Board held that the interest arbitration award was not a final decision on all matters in dispute, and therefore the 90-day extension period under s. 10(12) of the HLDAA had not yet commenced.

Consequently, the application for certification was premature and untimely, and was dismissed.

The applicants filed unfair labour practice complaints against the responding party, a tree seedling nursery.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicants were employed in horticulture, which is excluded under section 3(c) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicants argued they were employed in silviculture, an exception to the horticulture exclusion.

After reviewing expert evidence and caselaw, the Board concluded that the employer's primary business was producing tree seedlings for reforestation efforts and that the employees performing that work were employed in silviculture.

Consequently, the Act applied, and the Board had jurisdiction to entertain the applications.

The applicant, a newly formed independent union, applied for certification to displace the intervenor union.

The Board held a hearing to determine whether the applicant met the statutory definition of a 'trade union' under section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Despite irregularities in following its own constitution during its organizational meeting, the Board found that the essential features of forming a trade union—adopting a constitution, admitting members, and having representative officers—were present.

The Board concluded that the applicant is a viable organization of employees and therefore a trade union within the meaning of the Act.

The applicants sought declarations and directions regarding an anticipated work stoppage by the responding trade unions in support of the 'Days of Protest' against the provincial government.

The Board found that the planned concerted refusal to work during the term of a collective agreement constituted an unlawful strike under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, notwithstanding its political purpose.

The Board exercised its discretion to issue declaratory relief and cease-and-desist directions, noting the applicants' unsuccessful efforts to accommodate the protest and the unions' clear intention to disrupt production.

The applicant filed complaints against his union (OPSEU) for breach of the duty of fair representation and against his employer (George Brown College) for reprisals under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).

The employer and union raised preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction, delay, and duplicate litigation, as the applicant had also filed human rights complaints.

The Board dismissed the duty of fair representation complaint, finding the applicant had elected to pursue his remedies under the OHSA and had unreasonably delayed in raising his concerns regarding a specific grievance.

The Board also dismissed the majority of the OHSA complaint due to unreasonable delay.

The sole remaining issue regarding the applicant's separation from employment was stayed pending the resolution of his concurrent human rights complaints to prevent forum shopping.

The applicant, a local union business representative, was removed from office by the international union after losing his good standing due to the late payment of a union fine.

He applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 149(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, arguing he was removed without just cause.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, holding that section 149(2) does not create independent rights for individual members to challenge internal union discipline, but rather exists only to protect local union autonomy from unwarranted interference by a parent union.

During an ongoing hearing, the responding party sought to introduce the applicant's subpoenaed medical records, which the applicant opposed on the basis of relevance.

The applicant had previously sought to rely on summary medical reports without calling the physicians to testify.

The Board held that the subpoenaed medical records were relevant since the applicant intended to rely on medical evidence.

The Board ruled that the onus of calling the physicians rested with the applicant, and if she chose not to call them but still relied on the reports, the responding party would be entitled to rely on the subpoenaed records in response.

The applicant trade union referred a grievance to the Board alleging the employer failed to pay proper wage rates under the provincial ICI agreement for work performed at a Dofasco project.

The employer asserted the work was maintenance covered by a project agreement.

The General Presidents' Maintenance Committee for Canada (G.P.C.) and Dofasco sought standing to intervene.

The Board held that neither had standing as of right, as they were not bound by the ICI agreement.

However, the Board exercised its discretion to grant standing to the G.P.C. given its role in administering maintenance agreements and the potential impact on the collective bargaining system.

Dofasco was denied standing.

The applicant employer sought to terminate the responding party trade union's bargaining rights under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the union obtained its certificate by fraud.

The employer claimed the union filed membership evidence for individuals it knew were not employed by the employer.

The Board dismissed the application on preliminary objections, finding that the employer had received notice of the original certification application but failed to respond.

The Board held that the union's assertion of the employer's identity in the certification application, even if incorrect, did not constitute fraud, as the employer had the opportunity and obligation to dispute it during the certification process.

The Association of Law Officers of the Crown applied for certification to represent articling students employed by the Crown.

OPSEU intervened, claiming it already held bargaining rights for these students under an Order-in-Council establishing bargaining units for Crown employees.

The applicants argued that articling students fell into a residual bargaining unit and challenged OPSEU's representation.

The Board interpreted the statutory framework and Orders-in-Council, concluding that articling students were properly included in the first bargaining unit for which OPSEU was designated as the bargaining agent.

Consequently, the certification application was untimely, and the related applications to terminate bargaining rights and alleging unfair labour practices were dismissed.

The applicant union sought leave to withdraw its application for certification after the Board identified a potential irregularity in the membership evidence.

The employer opposed the withdrawal, arguing that the Board should proceed with the application on its merits to investigate the alleged forgery, especially since the union filed a second, identical application on the same day it sought to withdraw the first.

The Board held that the union's decision not to rely on the questionable membership evidence inherently carried the penalty of losing that support and delaying its certification efforts.

The Board found no abuse of process and noted that any limitation on employees' ability to oppose the second application arose from the statutory framework, not the union's conduct.

Following its usual practice when a request to withdraw is made after a meeting with a Board Officer, the Board dismissed the application.

A dissenting member would have denied the request to withdraw, noting that the union was not abandoning its claim to represent the employees.

The applicant union referred a grievance alleging the employer violated collective agreements by failing to apply them to excavation work at a landfill site.

As a preliminary matter, the Board had to determine whether the work was in the construction industry.

Based on an agreed statement of facts and a letter of understanding between the parties distinguishing landfill operations from construction work, the Board concluded the excavation work fell within the agreed definition of landfill operations.

The grievance was dismissed.

The applicant union sought interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to reinstate an employee benefit plan and wage rates that the employer allegedly changed without consent during first collective agreement negotiations.

The Board found an arguable case of a violation of the statutory freeze provisions.

However, the Board dismissed the application for interim relief due to the union's significant delay in filing the application, which undermined the urgency and need for an interim remedy.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by prohibiting editorial employees from wearing union buttons while meeting with the public on company business.

The Board found that wearing union buttons to support collective bargaining objectives is a lawful union activity protected by the Act.

The Board concluded that the employer's rule was inconsistently applied and motivated, at least in part, by an anti-union animus, thereby violating sections 65 and 67 of the Act.

A declaration of the violation was issued, though no further remedy was ordered.

The union applied for certification of employees providing cleaning services at two specific schools.

The employer argued for a broader municipal or regional bargaining unit, citing its integrated workforce and central administration.

The Board found that the site-specific bargaining units proposed by the union were appropriate, noting that the workforce was stable with limited interchange between locations, and that site-specific units would not cause serious labour relations problems.