M. G. Mitchnick

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union applied for certification to represent part-time paramedical employees at the Ottawa General Hospital.

The union proposed a bargaining unit of all part-time paramedical employees, while the hospital argued for a unit restricted to part-time medical laboratory technologists.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the hospital's proposed unit was appropriate, as it mirrored the existing collective bargaining structure for full-time employees, avoiding anomalies.

The Board certified the union as the exclusive bargaining agent for the part-time medical laboratory technologists.

The applicants sought a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

In support of the application, a group of employees left work en masse during working hours to sign a petition at the Labour Board.

The Board found that the employer's failure to question or prevent the mass departure would lead employees to believe management supported the petition and would know who did or did not participate.

Consequently, the Board concluded the petition was not a voluntary expression of employee wishes and dismissed the application.

A dissenting board member would have directed a representation vote.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's ambulance service.

The sole issue was whether a supervisor, Mr. Ball, exercised managerial functions under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act and should be excluded from the unit.

The Board found that Mr. Ball's duties were primarily those of a lead hand, with limited supervisory functions such as verifying time cards and routine scheduling.

He did not possess independent managerial discretion regarding hiring, firing, or other significant matters.

The Board concluded he was an employee within the meaning of the Act and included him in the bargaining unit, issuing a formal certificate to the applicant.

The applicant trade union applied for certification, demonstrating membership support of approximately 72 per cent of the bargaining unit.

The respondent employer and a group of objecting employees requested that the Board order a representation vote, alleging that the organizing campaign was characterized by a climate of intimidation, particularly affecting the large number of Vietnamese refugees in the workforce.

The Board heard evidence of isolated threats but found no pattern of intimidation related to the collection of membership evidence.

Declining to order a vote based on generalized cultural characteristics or surmise, the Board exercised its discretion to certify the union based on the unequivocal membership evidence.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's Mississauga warehouse.

The parties disagreed on whether certain individuals exercised managerial functions and whether the 'Speed Service' delivery drivers should be included in the unit.

The Board appointed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the duties of the disputed managerial individuals.

Regarding the Speed Service drivers, the Board found they had a fundamentally different working relationship and community of interest compared to the regular company drivers, as they used their own vehicles, were paid by commission, and had different hours and supervision.

Consequently, the Board excluded the Speed Service drivers from the proposed bargaining unit.

The applicant employee applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights under section 57 of the Labour Relations Act.

The application was supported by a petition signed by employees.

However, the petition was initiated and circulated by a working foreman who had supervisory responsibilities and was perceived to have the authority to recommend discipline.

The Board found that due to the foreman's significant involvement, the petition could not be accepted as a voluntary expression of the employees' wishes.

The application for decertification was therefore dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent trade union and its officials violated a prior Board order and the Labour Relations Act by supplying union members to a newly formed non-union contractor to perform struck work during a province-wide strike.

The Board found that while the new contractor was not a 'related employer' under section 1(4), the arrangement whereby union members continued to perform the struck work for a non-union employer violated section 146(2) of the Act.

The Board issued a cease and desist order and directed the union to inform its members that they could not perform the struck work.

The applicant employee applied for a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the respondent trade union.

The union argued that the employee petition supporting the application was not voluntary, citing the employer's past unfair labour practices and the recent layoff of employees.

The Board found that sufficient time had passed since the employer's prior misconduct to neutralize its effect, and there was no evidence of recent employer interference.

The Board concluded the petition was voluntary and directed a representation vote.

The employer applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights under section 59 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the union failed to commence bargaining within sixty days of giving notice.

The Board found that while there was a delay, it was adequately explained by the union representative's health problems and difficulties in forming a bargaining committee.

The Board concluded that the union had actively pursued its bargaining mandate and dismissed the application.

The applicant employee filed a petition to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

A counter-petition was subsequently filed by other employees, which, if valid, would have reduced the support for decertification below the required 45 percent threshold.

The Board rejected the applicant's argument that counter-petitions are invalid as a matter of law in termination proceedings.

However, the Board found the specific counter-petition in this case to be unreliable because the majority of employees could not read English and the explanation provided to them was confusing.

As the original petition maintained the requisite support, the Board ordered a representation vote.

The complainants sought a cease and desist order and damages, alleging the respondents engaged in unlawful picketing and strikes to prevent the employer from operating with members of the Christian Labour Association of Canada.

The respondents moved to strike the claims, arguing the alleged unlawful conduct had ceased months prior.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding no overriding labour-relations purpose to decline hearing the application or limiting the potential remedies before hearing the evidence.

The complainants, former employees of Donline Haulage Inc., alleged that the respondent Teamsters Locals breached their duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

Following the acquisition of Donline's assets by Softley Cartage Limited, the complainants sought to have their seniority dovetailed with Softley's employees.

The respondent unions determined that the collective agreements did not support dovetailing and that Softley's employees had vested seniority rights.

The Board found that the unions' decision not to pursue the complainants' seniority claims was reasonable and legally justified.

Although the unions failed to communicate adequately with the complainants, this failure did not constitute a violation of section 68.

The complaint was dismissed.

During an application for certification, a group of employees filed a petition opposing the union.

The union challenged the voluntariness of the petition, arguing that the main proponent was a lead hand who exercised managerial functions or was perceived as management.

The Board found that the lead hand possessed only minimal supervisory responsibilities and was not perceived as management by the employees.

The Board concluded that the petition was voluntary and directed the union to advise whether it wished to proceed with its section 8 charges or proceed to a representation vote.

The respondent union requested reconsideration of a Board decision that denied an adjournment to call a witness who was on vacation.

The Board reaffirmed its decision to deny the adjournment, noting that the witness was not under a legal obligation to attend the final day of hearing and that the respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to secure alternative evidence.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed and the ballots from the representation vote were ordered to be counted.

The applicant union applied for certification of a part-time support staff unit at the respondent's hospital in Wiarton.

The respondent argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should also include employees at a recently acquired hospital in Lion's Head, citing common administration and a small float team of employees working at both locations.

The Board rejected the respondent's argument, noting its normal practice of defining bargaining units by municipal boundaries and the lack of organizing interest at the Lion's Head facility.

The Board found the Wiarton-only unit appropriate and, satisfied that more than 55% of the employees were union members, ordered a certificate to issue.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging the respondent general contractor violated the subcontracting clause of their collective agreement by subcontracting work to a non-union employer who used members of a competing union.

The respondent failed to appear at the hearing due to a misunderstanding that the matter was settled as a jurisdictional dispute.

The Board found the respondent failed to exercise reasonable diligence and refused to fully reopen the hearing.

However, recognizing the underlying issue was a jurisdictional dispute, the Board made contingent findings of liability and damages ($3,296.80) against the respondent, deferring final disposition for 10 days to allow any party to file a formal jurisdictional dispute claim.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether persons occupying the positions of Senior Co-ordinator and Co-ordinator are employees for the purposes of the Act.

The respondent hospital opposed the application on various grounds, including that the positions had existed since 1971 without challenge.

The Board noted that the onus is on the party seeking to alter the status quo.

The Board appointed an officer to inquire into and report on the duties and responsibilities of the disputed positions.

The applicant applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine whether five individuals were 'employees' under the Act.

The Board reviewed the Labour Relations Officer's report and written submissions.

The Board found that the administrative assistant to the Director of Human Resources, the Administrative Services Supervisor, and the Co-ordinator of the Education Centre exercised managerial functions or were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations, and were therefore excluded from the definition of 'employee' under section 1(3)(b).

The Research Co-ordinator and the Co-ordinator of Employment Relations Services were found to be employees for the purposes of the Act.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union over two and a half years after she was discharged by her employer.

Following her discharge, the union declined to file a grievance, and the complainant pursued remedies against the employer through the Human Rights Commission and the courts.

The Board dismissed the complaint without inquiring into the merits, finding that the extreme delay prejudiced the union and that the complainant's pursuit of other remedies against the employer did not justify the delay in proceeding against the union.

The complainants, a former Business Manager and his wife, filed a complaint against the respondent union alleging violations of the Labour Relations Act, including intimidation, coercion, and sexual discrimination, following a disputed union election.

The respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the allegations under section 68, as the complainants were not employees in a bargaining unit, and under section 13, which does not create a standalone offence for sexual discrimination.

However, the Board refused to dismiss the allegations under sections 3 and 70, finding that the alleged pattern of intimidatory and coercive conduct designed to frustrate the union's democratic election processes raised a prima facie case.