M. G. Mitchnick

The union referred a grievance to arbitration challenging the discharge of an employee who refused to immediately repay a $4,578 overpayment in room and board allowance.

The overpayment occurred due to a mistake of fact by the employer's personnel office, despite the employee's honest disclosure of his living arrangements.

The Board found that while the employer was entitled to recover the overpayment and could use discipline to enforce it, it did not have just cause for discharge because it failed to give the innocent employee a reasonable opportunity to make repayment.

The grievance was allowed, and the employer was ordered to remove the 'Not For Re-hire' designation and pay damages for lost earnings.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer and an objecting employee argued that the union's membership evidence should be rejected or a representation vote ordered because the union used a two-tiered initiation fee ($1.00 now, $300.00 later) and allegedly coerced employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed the union's organizing tactics and found that the two-tiered fee was properly explained and allowed employees to join for the lower fee up until a first contract was signed.

The Board concluded that the union's conduct did not cross the line into misrepresentation, coercion, or intimidation.

Finding that over 55 percent of the employees were members, the Board certified the union without a vote.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine whether a newly created position, Exhibit Project Co-ordinator, was covered by the collective agreement.

The respondent employer argued the position was only being advertised and had not yet been filled.

The Board dismissed the application as premature, noting that section 106(2) applies to a 'person' rather than a 'position', and requires an actual individual to testify about their ongoing role and authority.

The complainant, the former Business Manager of Local 527, alleged that the respondents interfered with a local union election through intimidation and coercion, contrary to section 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

The complainant relied on a series of prior incidents, including alleged physical threats and irregularities during the ballot counting, to argue that the election results should be set aside.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the Board's jurisdiction over internal union affairs is limited to actual threats of physical or economic harm.

The Board concluded that the evidence did not establish a pattern of conduct amounting to intimidation or coercion, and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant employer filed applications for a consent to prosecute and a cease-and-desist direction against the respondent union and several individuals, alleging an unlawful strike arising from picketing at the applicant's premises.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the applications, finding that no employees failed to perform their scheduled shifts and therefore no "strike" within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act had occurred.

A dissenting board member would have granted the requested order, arguing that the concerted activity was designed to restrict or limit output by dissuading the public from patronizing the restaurant.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The respondent employer challenged the union's membership evidence, alleging that a union organizer engaged in improper conduct by offering to buy an employee's car, find a job for her boyfriend, and accepting a conditional payment of the membership fee.

The Board dismissed the employer's charges, finding that the organizer's conduct did not cross the bounds of acceptable salesmanship into coercion or fundamental misrepresentation, and that the conditional payment was not improper.

The Board consolidated the certification application with a related unfair labour practice complaint to hear evidence regarding a statement in opposition filed by objecting employees.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act regarding work performed by the respondent employer.

The employer acknowledged being bound by the collective agreement but disputed the amount of damages, having reneged on a prior settlement.

Due to the employer's failure to keep proper payroll records, the Board accepted the union's credible estimate of the time required for the job, minus the time attributed to painting work which was not proven to be a violation.

The Board ordered the employer to pay $2,533.12 in damages.

The employer applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether four newly-created positions were 'employees' for the purposes of the Act.

The union argued the positions fell within the scope of the collective agreement.

The Board examined the duties and responsibilities of the Operations Manager, Supply and Services Supervisor, Senior Property Standards Officer and Property Manager, and Operations Technologist.

The Board found that all four individuals exercised managerial functions, including supervising staff, authorizing time off, and making effective recommendations.

Consequently, the Board held that none of the four individuals were 'employees' within the meaning of the Act.

The Carpenters' Union referred a grievance to the Board alleging the employer violated the provincial collective agreement by employing non-union carpenters.

Concurrently, a group of employees applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

The Board found that employees hired prior to the statutory extension of the union's province-wide bargaining rights were "employees" in the bargaining unit with status to bring a termination application, and were entitled to a reasonable opportunity to join the union to preserve their employment.

The Board further found the termination petition to be voluntary, despite the employer's known opposition to the union, and ordered a representation vote.

The employer was also found in violation of the collective agreement and ordered to cease employing non-union carpenters, subject to the pre-existing employees' opportunity to join the union.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights during what would normally be the open period of the collective agreement.

The respondent union argued the application was untimely because the Inflation Restraint Act, 1982 extended the collective agreement for one year, thereby postponing the open period.

The Board applied its previous reasoning in Broadway Manor, finding that the statutory extension of the agreement closed the open period for termination applications.

The Board also rejected arguments that the Inflation Restraint Act violated the freedom of association under the Charter.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant trade union sought certification for the office and field staff of the respondent trade union.

The respondent raised preliminary objections, arguing that the applicant was barred under section 13 of the Labour Relations Act because it is an 'employer' and that its constitution precluded the respondent's field staff from membership due to potential jurisdictional conflicts.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objections, finding that the potential for future jurisdictional conflict was too remote to trigger the section 13 bar and that the applicant's constitution did not explicitly prohibit membership.

The Board appointed an officer to inquire into the appropriate bargaining unit.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of a business occurred under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act when a receiver entered into an interim management agreement with a numbered company to operate the insolvent predecessor's trucking business pending a final sale.

The numbered company applied the collective agreement of a competing union to the employees.

The Board distinguished prior cases where a receiver operated a business solely as agent for the debtor, finding that the numbered company operated the business for its own profit subject to a fixed monthly fee.

The Board declared that a sale of a business had taken place, entitling the applicant to give notice to bargain, and amended the competing union's collective agreement to exclude the predecessor's business.

The intervener employer requested the Board to reconsider its decision dismissing an application for termination of bargaining rights as untimely.

The employer argued that a conciliation officer had not been appointed under section 16 of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively, that the appointment was voided by the Inflation Restraint Act.

The Board found no grounds to alter its original conclusions, noting that the appointment of the conciliation officer was valid and not frustrated by the enactment of Bill 179.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer hired a non-union carpenter in violation of the collective agreement.

The parties had previously reached an oral settlement for $1,000, which the respondent failed to pay.

The respondent did not appear at the hearing.

The Board found that an oral settlement had been reached and directed the respondent to pay the $1,000 settlement amount forthwith.

The complainant union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that employees were laid off or discharged for union activity.

The respondent employer argued that it should not be required to proceed first with its evidence, asserting that the reverse onus provision in section 89(5) of the Labour Relations Act violates the presumption of innocence under section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Board rejected this argument, reaffirming its previous jurisprudence that section 89 is remedial and civil in nature, not penal or quasi-criminal.

The Board directed the respondent to proceed first with its evidence in accordance with normal practice.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union after the grievance committee withdrew his grievance, which had been posted to arbitration, without allowing him an appeal.

The union had withdrawn the grievance as part of a backlog clearance following contract negotiations, determining it could not succeed at arbitration.

The Board found that the union's internal appeal procedures did not extend to decisions made after a grievance was posted to arbitration.

As the union retained the prerogative to withdraw the grievance and did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith, the complaint was dismissed.

The applicant employer applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to have its Residence Supervisors exempted from the bargaining unit, a matter previously decided against the employer in 1981.

The Board treated the application as a request for reconsideration and dismissed it, noting that no new evidence or material changes in duties were presented.

The Board also declined to treat the matter as a fresh application under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act, as the parties were in the middle of a collective agreement term and the employer had not reserved the right to bring a subsequent application.

The applicant sought a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the respondent union representing clerical employees at a hospital.

The union and the hospital were negotiating a first collective agreement and a conciliation officer had been appointed.

The applicant argued that the passage of the Inflation Restraint Act, 1982, which extended compensation plans, effectively cancelled the conciliation officer's appointment, thereby making the termination application timely.

The Board held that for first collective agreements, the normal rights and obligations under the Labour Relations Act and the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act remain unaffected by the Inflation Restraint Act, except for the ceiling on compensation increases.

Therefore, the conciliation officer's appointment remained valid, and the application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

Although the union filed membership cards for 68% of the bargaining unit, a group of employees filed a timely statement in opposition (petition).

The Board held an inquiry into the voluntariness of the petition.

The Board found that the main proponent of the petition had openly established a link between the petition and company management in the minds of employees, creating a reasonable fear that management would learn who signed.

Consequently, the Board gave no weight to the petition and granted outright certification based on the membership evidence.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of editorial department employees.

A dispute arose regarding the managerial status of several first-line supervisors.

The union requested interim certification under section 6(2) of the Labour Relations Act pending the resolution of the disputed classifications.

The employer opposed, arguing that interim certification would cause disciplinary and bargaining difficulties.

The Board granted interim certification, finding that the employer's concerns did not constitute insuperable barriers to the commencement of meaningful collective bargaining.

A dissenting board member would have delayed the issuance of the certificate until the status of the disputed employees was resolved.