M. J. Fenwick

The applicant union sought certification for employees of the respondent, a non-profit social service organization for Metis and non-status Indians.

The respondent argued that its operations fell under federal jurisdiction pursuant to section 91(24) of the British North America Act because its members and beneficiaries were 'Indians' and its activities were of a federal character.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the respondent's operations did not constitute a federal undertaking or business, as they lacked a sufficient connection to Indian lands, the administration of reserves, or the exercise of rights under the Indian Act.

The Board concluded that provincial labour relations legislation applied and granted the certificate.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent hotel violated sections 58 and 70 of the Labour Relations Act by reprimanding one employee, discharging another, and altering working conditions during the statutory freeze period.

The Board dismissed the section 58 complaints, finding no evidence of anti-union animus in the employer's disciplinary actions.

The Board also found that the removal of bar stools did not violate section 70, as it was part of an ongoing renovation program.

However, the Board concluded that the discharge of an employee for purchasing U.S. funds violated section 70, as this practice was an established employee privilege that could not be unilaterally abrogated during the freeze period.

The discharged employee was ordered reinstated with compensation.

The respondent employer requested that the Board reconsider its 1978 decision certifying the applicant union without a hearing.

The employer argued that the work performed by the employees (stripping a gravel pit) was not work in the construction industry.

The Board dismissed the request, noting that the employer had the opportunity to object or request a hearing at the time of the original application but chose not to do so.

The Board emphasized the need for certainty and finality in its decisions and declined to exercise its discretion to reconsider.

The applicant union applied for a declaration under section 1(4) and section 55 of the Labour Relations Act that Devon Studio and Walkerville Printing Company Limited were related employers and bound by a collective agreement.

The Board found that the two entities were under common control and direction and constituted a single employer.

The Board further held that a memorandum of agreement signed by the employer effectively bound it to a joint collective agreement negotiated subsequently.

The Board declared the entities to be a single employer bound by the collective agreement, with retroactive compensation owed to employees.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union had been certified less than a year prior, but the employees had engaged in a lawful strike.

The applicant argued that the strike triggered the time limits in section 53(3) of the Labour Relations Act, overriding the one-year protection period in section 49(1).

The Board held that section 53(3) cannot reduce the one-year period of protection accorded to a newly certified union.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith under section 14 of the Labour Relations Act.

During a protracted strike, the employer continued to pay non-striking employees the rates from its last pre-strike offer.

However, near the end of the six-month strike period, the employer informed the union it would only sign an agreement if the union agreed to a wage reduction or lump sum payment to reimburse the employer for business losses suffered during the strike.

The Board found that this demand, coupled with the employer's failure to unilaterally reduce wages based on economic conditions, was designed for rejection and penalized employees for exercising their right to strike.

The Board concluded the employer was not negotiating with the intention of concluding a collective agreement and directed it to cease and desist from bargaining in bad faith.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed a statement of desire (petition) opposing the application.

The Board assessed whether the petition was a voluntary expression of the employees' views, given the overlap between those who signed union cards and the petition.

The Board found that the petition was circulated openly on company premises during working hours, with a chain of communication that could have attracted management's attention.

Rumours of a plant shutdown and the involvement of an employee closely related to management further tainted the atmosphere.

The Board concluded the petition was not a voluntary expression of desire, declined to order a representation vote, and granted the certificate based on the union's membership evidence.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees at Ontario Hydro's nuclear energy facilities, seeking to carve them out of an existing province-wide bargaining unit represented by the intervener.

The applicant requested a pre-hearing representation vote under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board refused the request, finding that the proposed bargaining unit was highly complex, uncertain, and a departure from the established province-wide collective bargaining relationship.

The Board concluded that the appropriateness of the bargaining unit must be determined before any representation vote could be reliably conducted.

The grievor requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsider its decision dismissing a complaint that he was discharged for union activities.

The grievor argued that because criminal charges for attempted vandalism—the employer's stated reason for discharge—were dismissed by a provincial court for lack of evidence, the discharge must have been for union activity.

The Board denied the request for reconsideration, explaining that the court and the Board apply different standards of proof and consider evidence for different purposes.

The Board found no new evidence or representations that would warrant reconsidering its finding that the employer did not violate the Labour Relations Act.

One Board member dissented, stating that the dismissal of the criminal charges warranted a reconsideration of the case.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of objecting employees sought to extend the terminal date to admit two late handwritten statements of objection.

The Board declined to extend the terminal date, finding that the employees had ample opportunity to read the posted notices and file their objections in a timely manner.

As the union had the requisite membership support on the terminal date, the Board granted certification without a representation vote.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer improperly sub-contracted plastering and stucco work.

The respondent argued that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights, as it had not directly employed bricklayers for five or six years.

The Board found that the union had not voluntarily abandoned its rights, noting that the respondent had complied with sub-contracting provisions by using unionized firms and that the employer bargaining agency had continued to include the respondent in provincial agreements.

The Board ruled the respondent was bound by the provincial collective agreement and directed the parties to attempt to resolve the remaining issues.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the respondent, More Groceteria Limited, was a successor employer bound by a collective agreement with Loblaws Limited.

Loblaws had closed a neighbourhood store, transferred its employees, and subleased the premises to the respondent, who also purchased the store's fixtures.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the transaction constituted a sale of a part of Loblaws' business under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board emphasized that in the retail food industry, goodwill often inheres in the premises themselves, and the direct commercial dealings between the parties supported a finding of a sale rather than a mere asset disposition.

The application was granted, with one member dissenting.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of all employees in N.D.P. Constituency offices in Ontario, naming the Province of Ontario Board of Internal Economy as the employer.

The Board applied the criteria for determining employer status and found that the individual Members of the Legislative Assembly exercise complete direction and control over the employees, including hiring, firing, and setting conditions of employment.

The Board of Internal Economy acts merely as a paymaster allocating funds.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the individual Members, not the Board of Internal Economy, are the employers.

The application for certification was dismissed.