M. G. Mitchnick

The applicant union sought certification for a unit of construction operators and drivers.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing the union, which, if voluntary, would normally prompt a representation vote.

The Board found that the employee who circulated the petition had recently been promoted to a 'working foreman' position, complete with a white hard hat and a company truck.

Because he circulated the petition while exercising these new managerial trappings and in the presence of actual management, the Board concluded that employees would reasonably perceive him as acting on behalf of the employer.

The petition was therefore given no weight, and the union was certified without a vote.

The applicant union sought to withdraw two applications for certification after receiving the employer's list of employees.

The respondent employer objected, requesting that the applications be dismissed, a six-month bar be imposed on future applications, and the union's membership count be disclosed.

The Board dismissed the applications rather than allowing them to be withdrawn, consistent with its practice when an examiner has met with the parties.

However, the Board declined to impose a six-month bar or disclose the membership count, noting that the issue of abuse of process could be addressed if a subsequent application is filed.

The Plumbers' Union filed a work-assignment complaint under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the installation of washroom accessories at a hospital renovation project.

The general contractor, Pigott Construction Limited, had assigned the work to its own carpenters.

The Plumbers' Union relied on a 1965 international agreement between the Plumbers' and Carpenters' unions that assigned such work to the Plumbers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board upheld the complaint, finding that the 1965 agreement was valid and had been historically recognized in the area, and declared that the work should have been assigned to the Plumbers' Union.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint and an application for a declaration of an unlawful lock-out, alleging the employer threatened to move part of its operations to a new location not covered by the collective agreement unless the union agreed to concessions.

The employer subsequently moved the Packaged Gas plant to a new location in Oakville.

The Board found that the scope clause of the existing collective agreement, which covered all employees at the employer's plant in Oakville, applied to the new facility.

Furthermore, the Board held that the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith by failing to disclose its plans for technological change and relocation during the recent round of collective bargaining when specifically asked by the union.

The applicant union applied for certification by way of a pre-hearing vote.

The respondent employer submitted its material, including the Employee List, late on the terminal date.

The applicant requested to review the list before the scheduled meeting with the Board Officer.

The respondent objected, citing concerns about abuse of process because the applicant had previously withdrawn a similar application.

The Board ruled that the Employee List must be disclosed to the applicant prior to the meeting, noting that early disclosure is necessary to avoid unnecessary time and expense, and that concerns about abuse of process can be addressed if a subsequent application is filed.

The complainant, an electrical contractors association, challenged a mid-term amendment to a province-wide collective agreement negotiated by the designated employer and employee bargaining agencies in the ICI sector of the construction industry.

The complainant argued that the bargaining agencies exhausted their authority once the agreement was concluded and could not amend it before its expiry.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the statutory designation of bargaining agencies includes the incidental power to amend the collective agreement mid-term, consistent with the general power of parties to revise agreements by mutual consent under the Labour Relations Act.

In an application for certification, the applicant trade union requested advance disclosure of the employer's Employee List prior to the scheduled meeting with a Labour Relations Officer.

The employer agreed to provide the list only if the union provided its Form 9 declaration concerning membership documents in return.

The Board declined to order immediate advance disclosure, holding that its current 'Waiver' process—whereby the list is provided to the union by a Waiver Officer after the parties' positions on the bargaining unit description are identified—adequately balances the union's need for preparation time with the employer's concerns about tactical advantages and gerrymandering.

Separate concurring and dissenting opinions were issued by the Board Members.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint against the respondent employer.

Instead of proceeding to a five-day hearing, the parties reached an omnibus settlement agreement that included conducting a representation vote.

The parties submitted their agreement to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for approval.

The Board approved the agreement, noting its mandate to facilitate the timely resolution of workplace disputes and finding no public policy reason to reject the parties' consensus.

The Board directed a representation vote for the agreed-upon bargaining unit and adjourned the unfair labour practice complaint sine die.

The Carpenters' Union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer and the Labourers' Union conspired to undermine its bargaining rights by assigning formwork to labourers instead of carpenters.

The Labourers' Union also applied for certification to displace the Carpenters' bargaining rights.

The Board dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint, finding that the matter was essentially a jurisdictional dispute over work assignment rather than a derogation of bargaining rights, which should be resolved under the jurisdictional dispute provisions of the Act.

Regarding the certification application, the Board found that at least three persons were employed as carpenters on the application date, entitling the Labourers' Union to a pre-hearing vote.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent, an agency assisting individuals with developmental disabilities.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description except for the inclusion of four Home Support Workers.

The employer argued these workers were dependent contractors or lacked a community of interest with other staff.

The Board found the Home Support Workers were employees under the Labour Relations Act and shared a sufficient community of interest with the other support workers.

The Board included them in the bargaining unit and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant union sought to displace the intervener union as the bargaining agent for the respondent's employees.

A representation vote was held.

The intervener and respondent requested that the vote be disregarded because the Board provided voting materials only in English and French, despite a large percentage of employees speaking Spanish or Punjabi.

They argued this violated the Human Rights Code and caused widespread confusion.

The Board reaffirmed its long-standing policy of providing documents only in English and French, noting that it is the responsibility of the parties to explain the process to employees who do not understand the official languages.

The request to retake the vote was denied.

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

The parties subsequently reached a collective agreement and the application was withdrawn.

However, the Board issued a ruling on an evidentiary issue raised during the hearing regarding the admissibility of evidence of negotiations that took place after the application was filed.

The majority of the Board held that the cut-off point for relevant evidence in a section 40a application is the date the application is filed, and evidence of post-application bargaining is generally inadmissible.

One Board member dissented.

The complainants alleged that the respondent Union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by negotiating and signing a collective agreement for franchised stores without submitting it to the membership for ratification.

The Board found that the Union's officers honestly and reasonably believed that a prior agreement, which had been ratified by the membership, authorized them to enter into the franchise agreement without a further vote.

The Board concluded that the Union did not act in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

A group of objecting employees sent a petition to the Board by Priority Post on the terminal date.

The union argued that Priority Post was not 'registered mail' as required by the Board's Rules of Practice and Notice to Employees, relying on a previous Board decision.

The Board declined to follow its previous decision, finding that Priority Post provides a written record of receipt with date and time of acceptance by the Post Office, which satisfies the registrable elements of registered mail.

The Board accepted the petition as timely.

The incumbent union and the employer filed a joint application for early termination of their collective agreement.

The intervening union, the United Steelworkers of America, objected to the application, arguing that early termination would eliminate the statutory 'open period' and prejudice its ongoing organizing campaign to displace the incumbent union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, holding that it would not grant early termination where it would abridge the two-month open period guaranteed by the Labour Relations Act and prejudice another union's right to organize.

The employer applied under section 106(1) of the Labour Relations Act for the Board to reconsider and amend a certificate to specifically exclude the position of 'secretary/clerk'.

The parties had already entered into a collective agreement.

The Board dismissed the application, noting its long-standing policy that once a collective agreement is negotiated, the certificate is spent and the bargaining unit is defined by the collective agreement.

The Board noted that questions of employee status under section 106(2) remain within its jurisdiction but are subject to estoppel-like principles.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied for certification and requested that the Board alter its normal bargaining unit description by deleting the words 'employed in a nursing capacity' pursuant to section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The union argued this would reduce litigation over whether certain positions fall within the unit.

The Board dismissed the request, holding that section 6(3) is designed to preserve historical craft bargaining patterns, not to extend them.

The Board certified the union for the traditional bargaining unit of nurses employed in a nursing capacity.

The complainant, a third-party contractor, sought relief under sections 89, 92, and 135 of the Labour Relations Act after its work was interrupted by a picket line established by the respondent unions.

The picket line was related to a dispute involving the Toronto Transit Commission, which was governed by the special Transit Labour Disputes Act.

The Board held that the special Act exhaustively enumerated the remedies available for its enforcement, which did not include sections 89 or 135 of the Labour Relations Act.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the section 89 and 135 complaints for lack of jurisdiction and directed the complainant to advise if it wished to proceed with the section 92 application.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, claiming retroactive room-and-board allowance for a worker at the Darlington construction project.

The worker had delayed filing the grievance for nearly three years despite being aware of the employer's refusal to pay the allowance.

The Board dismissed the grievance on the preliminary ground of laches, finding that the unjustified delay prejudiced the employer and that the worker had not been lulled into inaction by the employer's representations.

A grievance was referred to the Board concerning an employer's refusal to employ a sheet metal worker referred through the union hiring hall.

The worker had a prior compensable back injury and the employer's last information from the Workers' Compensation Board indicated he was only fit for modified work.

The employer refused to allow the worker on a heavy industrial job site without updated medical clearance.

The Board held that, analogous to an industrial setting, the employer had reasonable grounds to require medical clearance before allowing the worker to perform unrestricted duties, and dismissed the grievance.