M. G. Mitchnick

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of carpenters and carpenters' apprentices.

The respondent employer and intervener union argued that the employees in question were 'form setters' or labourers covered by an existing collective agreement, not carpenters.

The Board examined the work performed by the 25 individuals in dispute and concluded that they were all performing traditional carpenter's work on a substantial and continuous basis.

Consequently, the Board determined that all 25 employees fell within the applicant's proposed bargaining unit.

The applicant union sought to add parent corporations and individual shareholders as respondents to ongoing section 1(4) and 89 proceedings against the employer.

The union alleged that these entities and individuals controlled the employer and sought to add them to ensure recovery of any claims.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the request, holding that section 1(4) is intended to preserve bargaining rights, not to provide a 'deep pocket' for recovery where there has been no transfer of work or erosion of bargaining rights.

The Board also found no exceptional circumstances to affix personal liability under section 89.

The Board continued a successorship application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act following the sale of a nursing home business to the respondent.

The parties were unable to agree on a re-staffing model for the integrated facility prior to a representation vote.

The Board determined that the representation vote would be confined to the Nursing Home portion of the facility, excluding the Rest Home.

The Board established an arbitrary staffing model, allocating 70% of the Nurse's Aide hours to the predecessor's business and requiring a 1.1 full-time to part-time scheduling ratio, and directed the respondent to proceed with re-staffing immediately.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent successor employer committed an unfair labour practice by refusing to employ the predecessor's employees following a sale of a nursing home business.

The Board found that the respondent was legally obligated under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act to staff the new facility with the predecessor's employees.

The Board ordered the respondent to reinstate the former employees with full seniority and compensate them for lost wages and benefits.

The applicant union filed an application asserting that a sale of a business occurred between Daal Specialties and the respondent, Collingwood Fabrics Inc. The respondent acknowledged the sale.

However, a group of employees filed a petition seeking to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

The Board held that under section 63(10) of the Labour Relations Act, a union's bargaining rights are protected for one year following notice to bargain to a successor employer.

Consequently, the employee petition for termination was deemed untimely and the Board declined to inquire into it.

A dissenting member would have treated the petition as timely.

The complainant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to strictly enforce its hiring hall rules against members who obtained work directly from contractors.

The Board found that the union's decision to issue warnings and small fines rather than removing offending members from jobs was not arbitrary, given the longstanding nature of the rule violations and the practical difficulties of immediate strict enforcement.

The complaint was dismissed upon the union's undertaking to notify all members and contractors of strict future enforcement.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that two hospitals violated the statutory freeze period under section 13 of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act by increasing employee parking fees during collective bargaining.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the hospitals had a well-established pattern of periodically reviewing and adjusting parking rates.

The Board held that the increases constituted 'business as before' and did not violate the statutory freeze.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Although the union filed membership evidence exceeding the 55 per cent threshold required for automatic certification, a timely statement in opposition (petition) was filed by employees.

The Board inquired into the origination and circulation of the petition to determine if it was voluntary.

Despite some contradictions in the testimony of the employee representatives and concerns about their prior roles on an employee committee, the majority of the Board found no evidence of management interference or that employees would perceive the petition as a management initiative.

The Board accepted the petition as voluntary and directed a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, finding the petitioners' testimony contradictory and concluding the petition did not reflect the true wishes of the employees.

The applicant union alleged that a 'sale of a business' occurred when the respondent purchased a tavern that had been closed for several months after the previous owner defaulted.

The respondent argued that no business existed to be sold and highlighted renovations and a change in entertainment.

The Board found that a sale of a business had taken place, as the essential assets, including the liquor licence, were transferred and the premises continued to operate as a tavern.

The union's bargaining rights were declared to continue.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent nursing home argued that Registered Nursing Assistants acting as 'charge nurses' exercised managerial functions and should be excluded from the bargaining unit under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board reviewed the duties of the charge nurses, which included assigning work, training employees, and reporting on performance.

The Board found that these duties were inherent to their professional skills and did not constitute managerial functions, as they lacked the authority to make effective recommendations regarding wage increases, discipline, or termination.

The Board concluded the charge nurses were employees and certified the union.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent company terminated the employment of six grievors in violation of the Labour Relations Act due to anti-union animus following an unsuccessful certification vote.

The Board found that the termination of one grievor, who had a long history of poor performance, was not motivated by anti-union animus and dismissed that portion of the complaint.

However, the Board found that the failure to reassign or rehire the other five grievors after their department was closed was motivated by anti-union animus on the part of the general manager.

The Board directed the parties to attempt to agree on the appropriate remedies for the successful grievors.

The union brought applications under sections 1(4), 63, and 89 of the Labour Relations Act challenging the bona fides of Caressant Care's contracting out of dietary and housekeeping services to Versa Services at a new nursing home.

The Board found the arrangement to be a genuine, arm's-length contracting out where Versa Services assumed true control and responsibility for the selection, training, and supervision of the employees.

As the employer relinquished control over the performance of the work and employment relations, the Board dismissed the applications and complaint.

The complainant, a registered nurse, voluntarily resigned from her employment to take a new position, which was subsequently withdrawn due to a negative reference letter from her former employer.

The respondent union gratuitously grieved the reference letter and the employer's refusal to rehire her, but was unsuccessful at arbitration.

The complainant filed a complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, holding that the union's duty of fair representation extends only to matters within its exclusive bargaining rights, and does not cover post-resignation reference letters or refusals to rehire.

The complainant, a scoop operator, filed a complaint under section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging he was penalized for reporting a serious safety violation (blasting without posting guards).

The Board found that the foreman's conduct in portraying the complainant as a troublemaker to his peers constituted intimidation and coercion in violation of the Act.

However, the Board dismissed the allegation that the complainant's subsequent transfer to another level was a reprisal, finding it was a legitimate response to a temporary redundancy.

The employer was directed to post a notice acknowledging the violation.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent two crane operators employed by the respondent.

The intervener union and the respondent argued that the crane operators were already covered by the intervener's 'all-employee' collective agreement.

The Board found a latent ambiguity in the scope clause of the intervener's collective agreement and looked to the parties' past practice, which unequivocally showed that crane operators had been excluded from the agreement for over 20 years.

The Board determined that the proposed bargaining unit was appropriate and, as the applicant had the requisite membership support, ordered that a certificate issue.

The applicant union sought to terminate the bargaining rights of the incumbent union and apply for certification to represent employees at food-service outlets at Pearson International Airport.

The incumbent union had entered into voluntary recognition agreements with a new concession operator, which were ratified by the employees.

The applicant argued these agreements should be set aside under section 60(1) and section 46(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board dismissed the applications, finding that the employees had freely ratified the agreements and that the incumbent union had established it represented a majority of the employees at the time the agreements were entered into.

The applicant union sought to terminate the bargaining rights of the incumbent union, Local 1000A, and to certify itself as the bargaining agent for employees of a food-service contractor at Pearson International Airport.

The incumbent union had negotiated a new collective agreement with the successor employer, York County Foods, which was ratified by the employees.

The applicant argued the agreement should be set aside under section 60(1) of the Labour Relations Act because it contained a compulsory membership clause and the union had not established majority support.

The Board dismissed the applications, finding that the incumbent union had fairly established its majority support and that the employees had freely ratified the agreement.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and a representation vote was held.

Three ballots were segregated due to disputes over whether the individuals exercised managerial functions.

After the non-segregated ballots were counted, revealing a majority in favour of the union, the applicant conceded that one of the disputed individuals exercised managerial functions.

The respondent employer argued the applicant could not change its position after the vote results were known.

The Board held that a party may agree with the opposing party's position at any stage.

As the remaining two disputed ballots could no longer affect the applicant's right to certification, the Board certified the applicant on an interim basis and appointed an officer to inquire into the remaining disputed individuals and the part-time employee issue.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of a business occurred between Doran Construction Limited and the Taggart group, and that the Taggart companies were related employers.

Doran, facing financial difficulties, wound down its operations and sold its equipment to Taggart.

Doran's principals also agreed to provide part-time assistance to Taggart to help them enter the general contracting business.

The Board found that Taggart acquired the built-up experience, familiarity, and economic organization of Doran, constituting a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

Taggart General Contractors Limited was declared bound by the applicant's collective agreement.

The related employer application regarding Taggart Construction Limited was dismissed as the companies operated separately.

The applicant general contractor sought a cease-and-desist direction against the respondent union for picketing at a shopping mall construction site.

The union, which had no collective agreement with the applicant, picketed the site to protest the use of a non-union electrical subcontractor, causing unionized trades to refuse to cross the picket line.

The Board found that the picketing constituted acts that the union knew or ought to have known would cause an unlawful strike by other trades.

The Board issued a direction ordering the union to cease its picketing activities at the site.