M. G. Mitchnick

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether certain supervisors exercised managerial functions.

The respondent employer argued the application was untimely and should not proceed because the parties were engaged in a lawful strike and the supervisors were performing production work.

The Board held that the parties were 'in the course of bargaining' and the application was timely.

The Board noted that evidence of duties performed during the strike was irrelevant, but directed an officer to inquire into the supervisors' regular duties and responsibilities.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for employees engaged in the installation and erection of acoustical and drywall systems.

The respondent employer and an intervener union argued that the Board should revert to its normal practice of describing construction industry bargaining units by specific trades rather than by the work performed, citing a merger between the Lathers' and Carpenters' unions.

The Board declined to modify its long-standing practice of describing bargaining units in the acoustical and drywalling field by the work performed, finding no compelling reason to depart from the established organizational lines.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union sought certification but erroneously included managerial supervisors in its proposed bargaining unit description.

Relying on this inclusion, two supervisors organized a petition opposing the union.

At the hearing, the union amended its description to exclude the supervisors, rendering their petition invalid as a voluntary expression of employee wishes due to managerial taint.

Because the Board's original notice had explicitly invited the supervisors to respond based on the union's drafting error, the Board ordered the application to be re-posted in its amended form with a new terminal date to allow employees a fair opportunity to respond.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued several decisions regarding applications for certification and unfair labour practice complaints.

In the first case, the Board found that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act when three managers obtained signatures on a petition opposing the trade union.

The Board directed a representation vote and ordered remedial measures, including a posting and union access to employees.

Other decisions addressed the appropriate bargaining unit for a specialized business centre in a department store, a duty of fair representation complaint involving municipal technical employees, a sale of a business application concerning a retail food store, and the exclusion of a chemical control supervisor from a bargaining unit based on community of interest.

The applicant employees applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union under section 57(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The sole issue was whether the petition in support of the application represented the voluntary wishes of the employees.

The Board found that the petition was spearheaded by an employee who was a member of the religious order that managed the employer and who had recently stepped down from a management position.

Given this individual's unique status and close ties to management, the Board concluded that the petition's voluntariness was critically undermined.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of full-time and part-time sales staff at the respondent's retail store.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit descriptions, except for the sales staff in the newly created Business Centre.

The respondent argued that the Business Centre staff should be excluded due to their specialized skills, distinct commission structure, and flexible hours.

The Board rejected this argument, noting its policy against fragmented, departmental bargaining units.

The Board found that the differences in working conditions were matters of degree and that the Business Centre staff shared sufficient community of interest with the broader sales unit.

Certificates were issued for the agreed-upon full-time and part-time units.

The applicant union applied for certification for two bargaining units of the respondent's employees shortly after a related union lost a representation vote for an all-employee unit.

The respondent argued the Board should refuse to entertain the new applications under section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that the two unions have separate and distinct status under the Act, and the bar imposed on the first union did not apply to the applicant.

However, the Board appointed an officer to inquire into the appropriateness of the smaller bargaining units sought by the applicant.

The applicant trade union brought an application under sections 1(4) and 63 of the Labour Relations Act, claiming Ermac Power & Control Ltd. was a successor or related employer to Twin Electric.

Twin Electric argued it was never bound by the collective agreement as it had never formally joined the employers' organization.

The Board found that Twin Electric had participated in the benefits of full membership for years, abided by the collective agreement, and behaved as a member.

The Board held that the first collective agreement entered into on Twin's behalf conferred voluntary recognition, and bargaining rights continued under successive agreements.

The matter was directed to be listed for continuation on the successor and related employer issues.

The intervening employees requested an adjournment of the hearing because they received only seven days' notice and their counsel needed more time to prepare.

The Board granted the adjournment.

The complainant then requested that the intervening employees pay its costs for the day.

The Board denied the request, noting that it was not satisfied with the amount of notice given to the intervening employees and that it would be inappropriate to exact costs as a condition of the adjournment.

The applicant, a Teaching Master and practicing Roman Catholic, applied for a religious exemption from paying union dues under section 53 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act.

He objected to the union's adoption of a resolution supporting a woman's right to choose abortion, arguing it fundamentally conflicted with his religious beliefs.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the applicant's beliefs were sincere and religious, the application was premature because the union had not yet expended any funds or taken concrete action on the resolution.

The application was dismissed without prejudice to re-file if further developments warranted.

The complainant, a union health and safety representative, alleged that the respondent, a Ministry of Labour manager, violated sections 70 and 3 of the Labour Relations Act by threatening to dissolve the joint health and safety committee and threatening the complainant with 'big trouble' if he shared committee information with the NDP.

The Board found that the respondent's statements, while perhaps ill-advised, were motivated by a genuine desire to improve the dysfunctional 'internal responsibility system' at the workplace and to further the objectives of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, rather than to intimidate the complainant or cover up employer violations.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainants, drivers for Dufferin Concrete Products, alleged that their union, Teamsters Local 230, breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

The dispute arose when the employer closed a plant and sought to dovetail the seniority lists of Local 230 and Local 879.

Local 230 initially opposed dovetailing and appealed to the International union.

However, after the International dismissed the appeal and ordered compliance with the Joint Council's decision to dovetail, Local 230 accepted the ruling.

The Board found that Local 230 did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith in ultimately accepting the constitutional authority of the International union, and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether the newly created Production Control Co-ordinator position, held by Margaret Campbell, was an 'employee' for the purposes of the Act.

The respondent company argued the position was managerial and confidential.

The Board applied the 'effective recommendation' test and found that Ms. Campbell exercised independent judgment that consistently triggered immediate management responses, including discipline and staff cutbacks.

Consequently, the Board concluded she exercised managerial functions and was not an 'employee' under the Act.

The applicant union applied for certification of a unit consisting of assistant store managers at two grocery stores.

The respondent employer and intervener argued that the assistant store managers exercised managerial functions and were therefore excluded from the definition of 'employee' under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board noted that assistant store managers had historically been excluded from the existing collective agreement covering other employees.

Finding that the assistant store managers had authority to issue formal discipline, resolve inter-departmental problems, and act as the primary source of relief for the store manager, the Board concluded they exercised managerial functions.

The application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification of a tag-end bargaining unit of quality control technicians at the respondent's plant.

The respondent requested a deferral of the application based on a projected build-up of the workforce, and sought to exclude seasonal employees from the unit.

The Board declined to defer the application, finding that the projected build-up was dependent on uncertain sales projections and lacked the requisite degree of certainty.

The Board also refused to exclude seasonal employees, concluding that the quality control technicians did not share the distinct community of interest of seasonal production employees.

Finding that more than 55% of the employees in the unit were members of the applicant, the Board certified the union.

The applicant union applied for certification of a tag-end unit of employees not covered by existing collective agreements.

The applicant relied on the strict wording of the incumbent union's collective agreement, which only explicitly excluded 'drivers'.

The respondent employer argued that eight other employees (shippers, receivers, packagers) had historically been excluded by agreement with the incumbent union.

The Board held that an organizing union must take the situation as it finds it, including the actual practices of the employer and incumbent union, rather than relying solely on the text of the collective agreement.

The Board permitted the applicant to amend its proposed bargaining unit but directed a Board officer to inquire into whether the disputed employees shared a community of interest with the drivers.

Board Member Armstrong dissented, arguing that third parties should be able to rely on the clear words of a collective agreement.

The complainant building trade unions alleged a violation of a consent access order by the respondents.

The respondents argued the order was spent.

The Board found a bona fide justification for the unions' continued need for access to the property to persuade employees to join, particularly given a competing certification application by the Steelworkers.

The Board declined to read a temporal limitation into the access order and declared it continued in effect until a vote is held or the certification applications are determined.

The complainant trade union alleged that the respondent employer engaged in an unlawful lockout and violated several provisions of the Labour Relations Act by attempting to force employees to work under terms less favourable than their provincial collective agreement.

Facing cost overruns and pressure from the owner, the employer sought to implement a four-day work week with extended hours at straight time, contrary to the collective agreements of several trades.

When the union refused, the employer closed the site on Fridays, effectively reducing the employees' hours.

The Board found that the employer's actions constituted an unlawful lockout designed to compel the union to agree to concessions.

The Board also found that the employer violated section 146(2) of the Act by attempting to negotiate a separate local arrangement inconsistent with the provincial agreement.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A preliminary issue arose regarding the late filing of seven membership documents, which were sent by registered mail.

The terminal date for the application was August 31, 1983, but the registration stamp on the envelope was dated September 1, 1983.

The Board held a hearing to allow the applicant to prove the Post Office made an error.

The applicant's witness testified he mailed the documents on August 31, but failed to produce corroborating evidence such as a work schedule or the original registration slip.

The Board found the applicant failed to satisfy the onus of proving a Post Office error and ruled the seven late cards could not be relied upon.

The matter was referred to an officer.

The complainants alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation and violated voting procedures under the Labour Relations Act during a contract ratification meeting.

The union presented a combined ballot asking employees to either accept the company's final offer or authorize a strike, and refused requests to split the ballot.

The Board found that the union was entitled to structure the ballot to reflect the collective bargaining reality and bring negotiations to a head.

The Board also dismissed allegations of intimidation and found that, despite defects in the notice of the meeting, no employees were deprived of the opportunity to vote.

The complaint was dismissed.