M. A. Nairn

The applicant union sought leave to withdraw its application for certification prior to a pre-hearing representation vote.

The respondent employer requested that the Board dismiss the application and impose a six-month bar on future applications, noting this was the union's third application in four months.

The Board dismissed the application but declined to impose a bar, reasoning that the employees' wishes had not yet been tested by a representation vote and this was the first application to be formally dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's shop.

The parties disputed whether four employees participating in a federal Work Sharing Program should be classified as full-time or part-time, and whether separate full-time and part-time bargaining units were appropriate.

The Board found that the employees in the Work Sharing Program were historically full-time employees subject to a temporary reduction in hours to avoid layoff.

Concluding that there was no history of part-time employment and that all employees shared a community of interest, the Board determined that a single all-employee bargaining unit was appropriate and granted the certificate.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated the statutory freeze period under subsection 79(1) of the Labour Relations Act by unilaterally reducing the work week from five days to four, and then to three days, due to productivity concerns.

The employer argued the union was estopped from complaining because it did not explicitly object when informed of the changes.

The Board applied the reasonable expectations test and found that employees would not reasonably expect a reduction in hours due to productivity issues, especially when the issue was being negotiated.

The Board rejected the estoppel argument, holding that the statute strictly requires union consent for such changes.

The employer was ordered to compensate the affected employees.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that an employee was terminated for union activity.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing certification.

The Board found that the petition did not represent a voluntary expression of employee wishes because it was circulated on company time and premises with the tacit support of management.

The Board also found that the employer's termination of a union supporter, ostensibly for asking another employee to steal files, was tainted by anti-union animus.

The Board certified the union and ordered the employee reinstated with full compensation.

The complainant trade union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer violated the Labour Relations Act by making intimidating comments to a union official and subsequently laying him off from his position as an assistant dispatcher.

The employer claimed the layoff was due to a business slowdown and the employee's loss of his driver's licence.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving that the layoff was free from anti-union animus.

The Board concluded that the elimination of the assistant dispatcher position was motivated, at least in part, by the employee's participation in Board proceedings and his union activity.

The Board ordered the employer to reinstate the employee with full compensation and to post a notice in the workplace.

The parties agreed to the settlement by arbitration of their first collective agreement pursuant to section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The primary issues in dispute were wages and retroactivity.

The employer proposed a wage grid with discretionary merit pay and a productivity bonus plan, while the union proposed a single rate for each classification.

The Board rejected the employer's discretionary merit and productivity plans as inappropriate for a legislated first collective agreement, but awarded a wage grid with a start rate and an increment upon completion of the 90-day probationary period.

The Board also awarded a retroactive payment of either a $350 lump sum or a calculated retroactive amount up to a maximum of $650.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated the Labour Relations Act by terminating the grievor's employment due to his involvement in a union organizing campaign.

The employer maintained that the grievor was discharged for just cause, specifically a history of poor performance and minor misconduct following a final warning.

The Board found that the employer's concerns about the grievor's performance were legitimate and sincerely held.

The Board concluded that the decision to terminate was not motivated by anti-union animus and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant alleged that his employment was terminated contrary to section 24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act because he planned to circulate a petition requesting a lunchroom.

The respondent employer maintained that the complainant was discharged for overall poor performance, including chronic lateness and complaints from co-workers.

The Board found that the employer had no knowledge of the petition activity and that the termination was not motivated by any health and safety concerns.

The Board also declined to exercise its discretion under section 24(7) to modify the penalty, as there was no nexus between the employer's actions and the complainant's health and safety activity.

The complaint was dismissed, with one Board Member dissenting.

The union applied for certification.

A group of objecting employees filed a statement of desire (petition) opposing the union.

The Board held a hearing to determine if the petition represented a voluntary expression of employee wishes.

The Board found that the employee who originated and circulated the petition, while not exercising actual managerial authority, acted as a conduit to management and performed duties closely aligned with management.

Given her relationship with management and the circumstances of the petition's circulation, the Board concluded that reasonable employees would perceive management involvement and fear that their decision to sign or not sign would become known to the employer.

Therefore, the Board gave no weight to the petition and issued a certificate to the union.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint after the employer laid off 21 employees immediately upon learning of the union's organizing campaign.

The employer conceded that the layoff violated the Labour Relations Act but argued it had been planned for two days later due to financial difficulties.

The Board found that the sudden layoff of 25% of the proposed bargaining unit, without notice and just before a union meeting, would prevent the true wishes of the employees from being ascertained in a vote.

Finding that the union had adequate membership support for collective bargaining, the Board granted certification under section 8 of the Act and ordered compensation for the laid-off employees.

The union and the employer agreed to have the Board arbitrate their first collective agreement pursuant to section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The parties agreed on most terms but remained in dispute over seniority loss provisions, shift premiums, and the wage schedule.

The Board resolved the disputed items, rejecting the employer's proposed two-tier wage structure, establishing a probationary wage grid, and setting the wage rates and premiums.

The Board directed that the collective agreement consist of the agreed items and the awarded terms.

The complainant alleged that the union violated its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to represent her at an arbitration hearing concerning a job promotion.

The union had decided to support the grievance of a more senior employee who was unsuccessful in the same job competition.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union is not required to represent both competing interests and did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith in choosing to support the senior employee's grievance.

The applicant union applied for certification and a pre-hearing vote was held, with the ballot box sealed pending the resolution of disputed matters.

The respondent and intervener challenged the applicant's trade union status, its jurisdiction to organize the employees under its Charter, and argued that a six-month bar imposed on a sister local should apply to the applicant.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act and held that it had jurisdiction to organize the employees.

The Board also determined that the applicant was a distinct entity from its sister local, and therefore the six-month bar did not apply.

The Board ordered the ballots to be counted.