M. G. Mitchnick

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.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit consisting of employees at the Orangeville Sports Complex, claiming craft status under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act based on the requirement for a 'B' class refrigeration ticket.

The respondent municipality argued for a comprehensive unit of all outside employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant failed to establish the requirements for a craft unit, noting a lack of evidence of a history of separate bargaining for such employees.

The Board determined the proposed unit was inappropriate and, finding the applicant had less than forty-five percent membership in the appropriate broader unit, dismissed the application.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine whether certain persons were employees.

The respondent hospital objected, arguing that the parties had just concluded a new collective agreement without the union reserving the issue of employee status.

The Board applied its policy that a party cannot unilaterally withdraw from an agreement on employment status absent a material change in duties.

Because the union did not reserve its right prior to the new agreement, the Board limited the appointment of a Board Officer to inquiring only into material changes in duties and responsibilities since the new agreement was entered into.

The applicant union brought an application under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act alleging that a sale of a business had taken place when the respondents acquired the leasehold interest and liquor licence of The Horseshoe Tavern.

The respondents argued that they had merely acquired assets and changed the character of the business from a 'punk rock' venue to a 'country and western' lounge.

The Board found that the transaction constituted a continuation of the predecessor's business, noting that the tavern operated at the same location, under the same name, and that the 'punk rock' format was merely a brief interlude in the tavern's long history as a country and western centre.

The Board declared that a sale of a business had occurred and that the union's bargaining rights continued to bind the respondents.

The complainant trade union alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices by withholding a customary annual wage increase from bargaining unit employees during the statutory freeze period, and by engaging in surface bargaining.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer violated section 70 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to implement the wage increase in accordance with its past practice.

The Board also found that the employer violated the duty to bargain in good faith under section 14, and unlawfully interfered with the union's representation rights under sections 56, 58, 59, and 61, by insisting on discriminatory monetary proposals and directly communicating with employees to discourage ratification of a tentative agreement.

The Board ordered the employer to resume bargaining, table a non-discriminatory monetary position, and pay damages for the withheld wage increase.

The respondent employer requested that the Board reconsider its decision to certify a bargaining unit of part-time employees and summer students.

The employer argued that the Board should have applied the build-up principle and deferred the application until the summer student complement increased.

The Board found no basis to reconsider its decision, noting that its historical policy is not to permit a cyclical increase in summer students to defer an application made at another time of the year, and that the employer's arguments regarding turnover were not supported by evidence presented at the hearing.

The applicant union applied under section 82 of The Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 1975 to determine whether the incumbents of 15 positions at the respondent college were 'employees' within the meaning of the Act.

The respondent argued that the positions were excluded as managerial or confidential.

The Board found that 11 first-line supervisors exercised sufficient managerial authority, including handling grievances and monitoring performance, to be excluded from the bargaining unit.

However, the Board found that four other positions, including a Programmer Analyst, Systems Analyst, Payroll Assistant, and Payroll Clerk, did not have regular and material involvement in confidential matters and were therefore employees included in the bargaining unit.

The applicants, construction contractors at the Eldorado nuclear refinery project, sought a cease and desist order under section 123 of the Labour Relations Act against members of the Labourers' International Union, Local 1036, and other trades.

The Board found that the Labourers engaged in an unlawful strike by refusing to work and setting up a picket line over various grievances.

The Board also found that employees of other trades who refused to cross the picket line engaged in an unlawful strike.

The Board issued cease and desist orders directing the employees to return to work, but dismissed the application against three employees who had already been discharged.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A petition in opposition was filed, signed by two employees who had previously signed union cards.

One of these employees subsequently filed a statement revoking his signature on the petition and reaffirming his desire to be represented by the union.

The Board inquired into the voluntariness of the revocation statement.

Despite the statement being a standard form, the Board found no basis to refuse it at face value, as the employee had the opportunity to read and agree with it.

The Board discounted the employee's signature on the petition, leaving the union with unequivocal membership support of over 55%.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

During a hearing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the complainant union sought leave to cross-examine its own witness, alleging the witness made a prior inconsistent statement and was hostile.

The Board reviewed the distinction between an 'adverse' and 'hostile' witness under section 24 of The Evidence Act and relevant jurisprudence, notably Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company v. Hanes.

The Board held that the complainant could introduce the alleged prior inconsistent statement; if proven, this statement could then be used as a factor to persuade the Board to declare the witness hostile, thereby permitting full cross-examination.

The applicant hospital applied under section 95(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine whether its Head Nurses were 'employees' within the meaning of the Act.

Following an amalgamation with an adjacent hospital, the employer revised the Head Nurses' job descriptions to align with the other hospital's structure, where Head Nurses were excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board found that significant material changes had occurred in the Head Nurses' duties, including independent authority to grant time off, require overtime, monitor attendance, and participate in hiring and discipline.

The Board concluded that the Head Nurses exercised managerial functions and were no longer 'employees' under section 1(3)(b) of the Act.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of part-time employees and students.

The respondent employer objected, arguing that the application should be deferred under the 'build-up' principle because it planned to hire additional students for a new summer outdoor cafe.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rejected this argument, holding that the build-up principle does not apply to normal seasonal fluctuations in the workforce outside of historically-recognized industries like canning and tobacco-harvesting.

The Board found the current complement of part-time employees to be representative for most of the year and granted certification.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a newly incorporated non-union plumbing company was bound by its provincial agreement with the predecessor unionized company, alleging a sale of business or related employer status.

The predecessor company, controlled by one brother, ceased operations due to an inability to compete with non-union contractors.

The new company was formed by his brother and former employees.

The Board dismissed the applications, finding no common control or direction to support a related employer declaration, and no transfer of a functional economic vehicle to constitute a sale of a business.

The applicant, a newly-formed employees' association, applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent's mill operation, who were currently represented by the intervener union.

The intervener challenged the applicant's trade union status and the voluntariness of its membership evidence, arguing that an employee involved in organizing the association was perceived as managerial.

The Board found that the applicant met the requirements for trade union status under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also held that the organizing employee did not exercise managerial functions and would not have been perceived by other employees as acting on behalf of management.

The Board directed the appointment of an officer to settle the list of employees and arrange a representation vote.

The applicant requested the Board to reconsider its decision dismissing an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The applicant argued the Board's decision was contrary to the weight of evidence and that the Board applied overly strict rules to the petition.

The Board found no new grounds for reconsideration, noting that the petition was circulated in a cafeteria where supervisors were present, making it impossible to conclude the signatures represented a voluntary expression of the employees' wishes.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed, with one Board member dissenting.

The union applied for certification for employees of Bright Veal Meat Packers Ltd. The employer requested that the Board apply section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act to treat Bright Veal and Globe Wholesale Meats Inc. as one employer, arguing they were associated businesses under common control.

The Board found comprehensive integration and significant intermingling of employees between the two operations.

The Board declared the two companies to be one employer to prevent undue fragmentation of bargaining rights.

As the union did not have sufficient membership support in the combined bargaining unit, the application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees in the respondent's flooring division.

The respondent argued the bargaining unit should include all trades employed on the date of application, encompassing both its flooring and roofing divisions.

The Board found that the applicant did not have craft union status and evaluated the appropriate bargaining unit under section 6(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

Given the interchangeability of employees between the divisions and the potential for jurisdictional disputes in the construction industry, the Board determined the appropriate unit must include both the roofing and flooring divisions.

As the applicant had membership support of less than thirty-five percent in this broader unit, the application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the respondent companies were bound by the provincial Carpenters' collective agreement, either as a sale of a business under s. 55 or as related employers under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The principal, Roy Brandon, had operated a unionized construction company that went bankrupt in 1973.

He subsequently started new non-union companies.

The Board found that while s. 55 did not apply, the companies were related employers under s. 1(4) despite the intervening bankruptcy.

The Board exercised its discretion to grant the declaration but limited its retroactive effect, making it applicable only to contracts entered into after the respondents received notice of the union's claim.

One Board member dissented on the prospective limitation of the remedy.

The complainant, a temporary employee, filed a complaint alleging that the respondent trade union breached its duty of fair representation under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to grieve her termination.

The union argued that temporary employees were excluded from the bargaining unit and therefore it owed no duty to the complainant.

The Board found that while the union had negotiated certain benefits for temporary employees, it had not obtained voluntary recognition to represent them as part of the bargaining unit.

As the complainant was not an employee in a bargaining unit that the union was entitled to represent, the complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union filed unfair labour practice complaints and an application for certification without a vote under section 7a of the Labour Relations Act.

The union alleged that the respondent hotel engaged in excessive security surveillance and discharged several employees for their union organizing activities.

The Board found that the respondent violated the Act by implementing security measures designed to restrict organizing and by discharging employees for their union involvement.

Concluding that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained through a vote and that the union had adequate membership support (30%), the Board certified the union and ordered the reinstatement of the discharged employees with compensation.