M. A. Nairn

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the employer bargained in bad faith and engaged in an unlawful lockout when it closed its restaurant operation.

The employer had sought significant monetary concessions due to mounting financial losses, which the union repeatedly rejected.

After the employer implemented a lockout, it learned the union wanted to continue negotiating but decided to permanently close the business.

The Board dismissed the complaints, finding that the employer bargained in good faith and that the lockout and subsequent closure were motivated by legitimate financial concerns rather than anti-union animus.

The Board also held that the employer's final offer did not remain open for acceptance after the business closed.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of municipal inside workers.

The responding party employer disputed the employee status of ten individuals, arguing they exercised managerial functions or were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations under section 1(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that only the Records Management Coordinator was excluded due to her regular involvement with confidential labour relations information.

The remaining nine individuals, including planners, inspectors, and secretarial staff, were found to be employees within the meaning of the Act, as their access to confidential information or exercise of managerial authority was irregular or insufficient to warrant exclusion.

The applicant union filed a second application for certification after withdrawing its first application due to irregularities in the membership evidence (pre-witnessed cards).

The responding employer argued that the new membership evidence was tainted by the union's prior conduct, including an allegedly fraudulent unfair labour practice complaint and the earlier card irregularities.

The Board found no evidence of impropriety in the collection of the fresh membership evidence and declined to dismiss the application or order a representation vote, distinguishing cases where actual fraud on the Board had occurred.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer terminated three employees due to anti-union animus during an organizing campaign.

The union also sought certification without a vote under section 9.2 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the employer's stated reasons for the terminations were pretextual and that the decisions were motivated by a belief that the employees supported the union.

Given the employer's serious violations, including interrogating employees and terminating union supporters, the Board concluded that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the employees with compensation and certified the union.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by issuing letters to two reinstated employees prohibiting them from engaging in union activity or discussing union-related issues on company premises.

The employer argued that recent amendments to the Act restricted union organizing to outside the workplace.

The Board rejected this interpretation, finding that the amendments addressed access to property by non-employees, not the rights of employees already lawfully on the premises.

The Board held that the prohibition violated sections 65 and 67 of the Act and declared the restriction void, but declined to order a workplace posting.

The applicant union applied for certification of security guards employed by the responding party.

The responding party argued that the Ontario Labour Relations Board lacked constitutional jurisdiction because 90% of its security services were provided to federal government departments and agencies under a detailed federal contract.

The Board held that while the provision of security services may be reasonably incidental to the federal undertakings, it was not integral or essential to their core operations.

Therefore, the employment relationship fell within provincial jurisdiction.

The Board found it had jurisdiction and granted the certification.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of a business and intermingling of employees occurred between the respondent companies, and requested a representation vote.

The Board found that a sale of a business had occurred when Union Felt purchased Almac Industries Inc. and subsequently integrated operations.

The Board concluded that intermingling of employees had taken place and ordered a representation vote to determine which of the two trade unions should represent the combined bargaining unit.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer terminated five night crew employees due to their involvement in an organizing campaign.

The employer claimed the terminations were part of a chain-wide cost-reduction strategy.

The Board found the employer's actions inconsistent with its prior policies and concluded the terminations were tainted by anti-union animus, violating the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the employees reinstated with compensation.

Furthermore, finding that the employer's substantial misconduct would prevent the ascertainment of employees' true wishes in a representation vote, the Board granted certification pursuant to section 8 of the Act.

The applicant union applied for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration under section 41 of the Labour Relations Act.

The parties had engaged in negotiations that broke down after the legal strike deadline passed.

The Board found that the respondent employer failed to make reasonable or expeditious efforts to conclude an agreement, notably by implementing a wage increase without consulting the union and refusing to schedule further negotiations.

The Board also found the employer's bargaining positions—which sought to severely limit arbitral review, undermine seniority, and impose a two-tier compensation system—were uncompromising and taken without reasonable justification.

The Board directed the settlement of the first collective agreement by arbitration.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

A dispute arose regarding the geographic scope of the appropriate bargaining unit and the inclusion of certain employees.

The applicant sought to reserve its right to challenge the eligibility of employees at the respondent's Lepage Court location after the vote was taken.

The Board denied the request, emphasizing that parties must identify their disputes and make challenges prior to the taking of a pre-hearing representation vote to ensure the integrity of the process.

The Board directed that the vote proceed with segregated ballots for the disputed locations and classifications.

The applicant trade union applied for a direction to arbitrate a first collective agreement.

The parties had reached an impasse in negotiations, primarily over the union's proposal for a union shop provision and the employer's proposal allowing foremen to perform bargaining unit work.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's uncompromising positions on these issues were taken without reasonable justification and reflected an underlying refusal to recognize the union's bargaining authority.

The Board directed the arbitration of the first collective agreement.

The respondent hospital requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision that found a bargaining unit comprised only of registered or graduate nursing assistants to be appropriate.

The respondent argued the Board placed undue emphasis on facilitating access to collective bargaining and should hear from other stakeholders.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no new evidence or arguments that could not have been raised previously, and noting that the respondent had full opportunity to address the issue during the original hearing.

A dissenting Board member would have granted the reconsideration request given the significant policy implications for the hospital sector.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees in the respondent's Leaf Division.

The parties agreed on most of the bargaining unit description but disputed whether seasonal employees should be included.

The respondent argued that the application was made out of season and seasonal employees should be excluded, relying on exceptions for canning and tobacco harvesting.

The Board found that the respondent's operations involved processing, not harvesting, and that the application was made in-season.

The Board concluded that seasonal employees shared a community of interest with permanent employees and included them in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of restaurant employees at a Cara Operations Limited location, seeking to displace the incumbent union, Local 88.

The parties agreed on all matters in dispute and waived a formal hearing.

Local 88 notified the Board that it wished to abandon its bargaining rights, leading the Board to declare that Local 88 no longer represented the employees.

Finding that the applicant is a trade union and that more than 55 percent of the employees in the agreed-upon bargaining unit were members, the Board ordered a certificate to issue to the applicant.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit comprised solely of registered and graduate nursing assistants at the respondent hospital.

The hospital argued that the appropriate unit should be a broader service unit, consistent with historical Ontario Labour Relations Board practice.

The Board reviewed the history of bargaining unit configurations in the hospital sector and the evolving professionalization of nursing assistants.

Balancing the community of interest, the aversion to undue fragmentation, and the employees' right to self-organization, the majority found that the proposed unit of registered and graduate nursing assistants was appropriate.

A dissenting member argued that the decision departed from established precedent and risked undue fragmentation.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees at the respondent's hotel.

The parties disputed the composition of the bargaining unit, specifically whether eleven individuals exercised managerial functions or performed security services such that they should be excluded under the Labour Relations Act, and whether two individuals shared a community of interest with the bargaining unit.

The Board reviewed the duties and responsibilities of the challenged employees, including Sous-Chefs, Banquet Captain, Acting Manager of the Fitness Centre, Chief Steward, Assistant Housekeeper, and Hosts/Hostesses.

The Board concluded that none of the challenged individuals exercised managerial functions within the meaning of section 1(3)(b) of the Act.

The Board also found that the two individuals challenged on community of interest grounds shared a greater community of interest with the bargaining unit than with the office and sales staff.

All challenged individuals were included in the bargaining unit.

The union applied under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The parties had engaged in fourteen negotiating sessions over ten months but remained at an impasse on key issues including union security, wages, and a specific penalty clause for discharge.

The Board found that the employer had taken uncompromising positions without reasonable justification, failed to make reasonable or expeditious efforts to conclude an agreement, and effectively refused to recognize the union's bargaining authority.

The Board directed the settlement of the first collective agreement by arbitration.

The applicant union applied for certification and a pre-hearing representation vote was held.

The Board previously determined the appropriate bargaining unit description, which excluded employees at a specific location.

The respondent employer objected to counting the ballots, arguing that employees who subsequently moved into the bargaining unit should have their ballots counted.

The Board dismissed the objection, holding that the determination of employee support must be made as of the application date, regardless of subsequent workforce fluctuations.

The Board directed that the ballots be counted in accordance with its previous decision.

A dissenting board member argued that the bargaining unit should have been broader and that the subsequent events demonstrated the wisdom of a broader unit.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent security guards employed by the respondent at a single hospital in Metropolitan Toronto.

The respondent employer argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should encompass all its security guards across its nine hospital locations in the municipality, citing centralized management, similar duties, and potential contractual conflicts.

The Board applied its principles on geographic scope and community of interest, finding insufficient evidence of regular employee interchange between locations to render the single-location unit inappropriate.

The Board granted certification for the single-location bargaining unit.

The union applied for certification of employees at the employer's Bellamy/Progress location.

The employer argued the bargaining unit should encompass all its locations within Metropolitan Toronto.

The Board applied the community of interest criteria and found that the single-location bargaining unit proposed by the union was appropriate, as there was no functional integration or interchange of employees between the different locations.

The Board also resolved disputes over the inclusion of specific individuals in the bargaining unit and ordered the ballots from the pre-hearing representation vote to be counted.