M. J. Fenwick

The applicant union applied for certification for two bargaining units at the respondent hotel.

The Board found that the head housekeeper exercised managerial functions and excluded him from the units.

The respondent argued that the application should be dismissed under section 12 of the Labour Relations Act because the head housekeeper, acting as management, solicited union memberships.

The Board held that section 12 did not apply because the head housekeeper was acting contrary to the employer's interests and employees did not perceive him as acting on behalf of management.

However, due to concerns about threats of job loss and misrepresentations made by the head housekeeper during the organizing campaign, the Board exercised its discretion to order a representation vote.

The applicant employer applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 51(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration terminating the union's bargaining rights, alleging the union failed to seek to bargain for a period of 60 days.

The parties had met once to commence bargaining, after which 12 weeks elapsed without the union seeking to bargain.

However, the union subsequently applied for conciliation services before the employer filed its termination application.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union's renewed interest in pursuing its bargaining rights through the conciliation request cured its earlier lack of diligence, making termination inappropriate.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the respondent employer unjustly discharged a union steward.

The union argued the discharge violated the provincial agreement and section 24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, claiming the steward was fired for raising safety concerns about propane fumes.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the steward's conduct was not motivated by genuine health and safety concerns, but rather by a desire to disrupt the job site using a false safety claim.

The Board concluded the employer had just cause for the discharge.

In an application for certification, the employer objected to the union reviewing the employee list, arguing it could be used for future organizing and that employees wished to remain anonymous.

The Board ruled that the union must be given access to the list to verify its accuracy, as the Board relies on it to determine union support.

The Board also ruled that the union could review the list without management present to protect the secrecy of union membership and solicitor-client privilege.

A representation vote was ordered.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the respondent was a successor employer following the sale of a business and was therefore bound by the existing collective agreement.

The respondent admitted the sale occurred but argued the Board had general discretion under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act to declare it not bound by the agreement.

The Board rejected this argument, finding that section 55 is declaratory in nature and automatically flows bargaining rights through to the successor employer, subject only to specific statutory exceptions.

The Board declared the respondent bound by the collective agreement.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by paying incentive workers their day rate, rather than their average hourly earnings, during periods when work was suspended due to unsafe air contamination.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer treated the situation as 'idle time' under the collective agreement and did not impose a penalty on the employees because they sought compliance with the Act.

A dissenting member would have found the failure to pay average hourly earnings constituted a pecuniary penalty.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent hospital violated the statutory freeze period under the Labour Relations Act and the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act by announcing a reorganization of its intravenous and outpatient blood collection services.

The reorganization would require nurses who previously worked straight days to rotate between two shifts.

The Board found that the expired collective agreement contained an express management rights clause permitting the hospital to determine work schedules and hours of work.

The Board held that the exercise of this express right during the freeze period did not constitute a violation, as it maintained the collective bargaining status quo.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant unions sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Ferro Structural Steel (Toronto) Limited (F.S.S.) and Ferro Erectors (Toronto) Limited (F.E.) constituted one employer, thereby binding F.S.S. to a province-wide collective agreement.

While the Board found the companies were under common control and direction, it declined to exercise its discretion to grant the declaration.

The Board held that the union knew or ought to have known for many years that F.S.S. was not bound by the agreement and was sub-contracting to non-union erectors, yet failed to act with sufficient dispatch to protect its bargaining rights.

The applicant union brought an application under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that a sale of a business occurred between Vaunclair Purveyors and Vaunclair Meats, and that the latter was bound by the existing collective agreement.

Vaunclair Purveyors had shut down its meat processing operations, and its principals subsequently incorporated Vaunclair Meats, which operated as a distribution house from the same location, serving many of the same customers with some of the same employees and assets.

The Board found that while the new operation was smaller and functioned differently, it constituted a continuation of a severable part of the predecessor's business.

The Board concluded there was a sale of part of the business and that the union's bargaining rights continued.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Two timely statements of desire (petitions) were filed in opposition.

The union argued the petitions were not voluntary due to comments made by a petitioner at a union meeting and a letter distributed by the employer regarding an altercation between employees.

The Board found that the petitioner was not perceived as management and his comments were personal views.

The Board also found the employer's letter to be evenhanded and not coercive.

Concluding the petitions were voluntary, the Board exercised its discretion to order a representation vote.

Board Member Fenwick dissented.

The union applied for certification.

The employer challenged the inclusion of four persons, arguing they exercised managerial functions.

The Board found all four were employees.

The union also requested certification without a vote under section 7a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the employer committed unfair labour practices.

The Board found the employer violated the Act by suspending a union supporter, withdrawing overtime from union supporters, threatening employees, and posting a notice threatening to reduce holidays.

Concluding that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained in a representation vote and that the union had adequate support, the Board certified the union without a vote.

The Labourers and the Operating Engineers applied for certification of employees at the respondent's new land fill site in Maple.

The Teamsters intervened, asserting they already held bargaining rights for the site under a pre-existing collective agreement.

The applicants argued the Teamsters had abandoned their rights.

The Board found no abandonment, as the Teamsters had merely agreed to postpone asserting their rights until the site was fully operational.

The Board also dismissed the Labourers' argument that they held bargaining rights under section 1(4) of the Act, noting that section 1(4) is meant to protect, not expand, bargaining rights.

A representation vote was ordered with all three unions on the ballot.

A group of employees applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights under section 51(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The union had given notice to bargain but failed to commence bargaining within sixty days.

The union did not appear at the hearing to provide an explanation for its failure to bargain.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board exercised its discretion to terminate the union's bargaining rights without a representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification to displace the incumbent union representing technical paramedical employees and to expand the bargaining unit to include previously unrepresented professional paramedical employees.

The Board held that in a displacement application, a union cannot sweep in a group of previously unrepresented employees solely on the strength of its membership support in the incumbent's unit.

The Board found the incumbent's bargaining unit to be the appropriate unit, ordered a representation vote for that unit, and dismissed the application as it related to the unrepresented professional employees due to insufficient membership support.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the grievor was unjustly suspended and discharged by the respondent employer.

The grievor was discharged following two incidents of insubordination and violence towards a general foreman, including pushing the foreman to the floor and throwing a hard hat at him.

The grievor alleged the foreman had provoked him with a racial slur, but the Board rejected this evidence based on credibility findings.

The Board found that the respondent had just cause for discharge given the seriousness of the assault, the grievor's short employment record, and his lack of remorse.

The Board declined to substitute a lesser penalty and dismissed the grievance.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed petitions in opposition to the union, which, if voluntary, would normally cause the Board to order a representation vote.

The Board found that the petitions were not voluntary because they were circulated in the presence of a lead person perceived as having managerial authority, and because the plant manager had created an atmosphere of concern for job security by mentioning possible plant closure and calling employees into his office.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and issued a certificate to the applicant.

One Board member dissented, arguing a vote should be ordered.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent nursing home violated the Labour Relations Act by laying off its housekeeping and janitorial employees and contracting out their work.

The union argued the employer bargained in bad faith by failing to disclose this intention during negotiations and that the contracting out was motivated by anti-union animus to avoid the economic impact of the collective agreement.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer had no intention to contract out when the agreement was signed.

Furthermore, the Board held that the decision to contract out was a legitimate business decision motivated solely by a desire to save money, not by anti-union animus, and was permitted under the management rights clause of the collective agreement.

The respondent employers brought a request to vary an interim order previously issued by the Board in a jurisdictional dispute under section 81 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employers sought to add specific installation work to the order.

The Board noted that both the complainant and respondent trade unions had claimed this work at the time the initial complaint was filed, and their positions remained unchanged.

Relying on its jurisdiction under section 95(1) of the Act, the Board varied the interim order to direct the employers to assign the additional work to members of the appropriate complainant trade unions.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed a petition objecting to the application.

The Board found that the employer had tacitly supported the petition by allowing the objecting employees to use the company lunchroom during working hours to gather signatures, and by a foreman complying with a request to leave the lunchroom while the petition was being circulated.

Concluding that the petition did not represent the true wishes of the employees due to this perceived management interference, the Board gave it no weight and ordered a certificate to issue to the applicant union.

One Board member dissented, arguing the evidence did not establish employer support.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent hotel.

The respondent challenged the applicant's trade union status due to a recent merger of two locals, and argued against the exclusion of part-time employees and students from the bargaining unit.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and maintained its standard practice of excluding part-time employees and students.

However, because many membership cards bore the name of a predecessor local rather than the newly merged applicant, the Board found an element of doubt regarding the employees' intentions and ordered a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, arguing that the cards were valid and automatic certification should have been granted.