M. Kaye Joachim

The union filed a certification application but withdrew it before a representation vote upon learning the employer had more employees than anticipated.

The Board permitted the withdrawal without imposing a bar.

The employer sought reconsideration, arguing that section 7(9) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 mandates a bar upon withdrawal.

The Board held that section 7(9) grants discretion to determine whether to impose a bar and its length.

Finding no abuse of process and that employee wishes had not yet been tested, the Board declined to impose a bar.

A certificate was issued in the union's subsequent successful application.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of stage employees at the Grand Theatre Centre of Sudbury.

The only issue in dispute was whether the stage hands were employees or independent contractors.

Applying the eleven-factor test from Algonquin Tavern, the Board found that the stage hands did not exhibit entrepreneurial activity, were paid standard rates, and worked under the ultimate control of the theatre's principal.

The Board concluded they were employees, not independent contractors, and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

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

The union argued the application was untimely under section 62(3) of the Labour Relations Act because a lawful strike had commenced.

The employer intervened, arguing no strike had occurred because the picketing taxi drivers did not disrupt the employer's dispatch operations or withhold rental fees.

The Board held that while there was no actual disruption to the employer's business, the union's concerted picketing activity was designed to restrict or limit output.

Therefore, a strike had occurred, rendering the decertification application untimely.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of employees at a child care centre.

The employer requested a representation vote, arguing that the current workforce was not a substantial and representative part of the expected workforce due to a planned build-up of employees for the school age program.

The Board applied the build-up principle and found that over fifty percent of the anticipated number of employees were employed on the application date.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and granted automatic certification.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, noting that section 2(1)(f) of the Act explicitly excludes teachers.

The applicant argued that this exclusion violated section 7 of the Charter by depriving him of the right to hold his union accountable, which he claimed affected his right to practice his profession.

The Board rejected the Charter argument, holding that section 7 does not protect economic interests or the right to engage in a particular profession.

The applicants applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the union for the full-time and part-time bargaining units at a pharmacy in Orangeville.

The union raised a preliminary objection, arguing that a Memorandum of Agreement had combined the Orangeville units with an Ottawa-Carleton unit, and therefore the application lacked the requisite 45% support in the combined unit.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the bargaining units defined in the collective agreements remained separate for the purposes of the termination application.

On the merits, the Board found that the petition in support of decertification was voluntary and directed that representation votes be taken.

The applicant employees applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding union.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the employee petitions filed in support were not voluntary.

The Board concluded that the active involvement of lead hands—who were perceived by employees as linked to management—in originating and circulating the petitions during working hours would likely lead employees to believe the petitions were supported or condoned by management.

A subsequent request for reconsideration was also dismissed, as it raised no new issues or evidence that could not have been presented at the initial hearing.

The applicant union applied for certification and the parties engaged in a waiver process to resolve outstanding issues without a hearing.

The union agreed to the employee list without challenging the exclusion of four Regional Managers, as it was in a certifiable position regardless.

Later, the union sought to challenge their exclusion under section 108(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that parties are bound by agreements made during the waiver procedure absent extraordinary circumstances.

The union was not permitted to resile from its agreement on the employee list, and the employer was not permitted to resile from its agreement on the geographic scope of the bargaining unit.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union sought to include Inspectors and Instructors in the bargaining unit.

The responding party employer argued they exercised managerial functions and should be excluded under section 1(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board applied the effective control test and found that Inspectors have significant disciplinary authority and Instructors have the power to effectively recommend the retention or dismissal of probationary employees.

The Board concluded that both classifications exercise managerial functions and are excluded from the bargaining unit.

The applicant trade union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether numerous persons were 'employees' within the meaning of the Act.

The parties resolved the status of most individuals, leaving seventeen persons in dispute.

The Board assessed whether these individuals exercised managerial functions or were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

The Board concluded that seven of the disputed persons exercised managerial functions and were excluded from the Act, while the remaining ten were employees within the meaning of the Act.

One Board Member dissented, finding that all seventeen should be excluded.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Board regarding whether a collective agreement existed between the union and the employer.

The parties had signed a memorandum of settlement which was subsequently ratified by the union membership.

The union argued that because written notice of ratification was not provided, the agreement was not finalized.

The Board held that written evidence of ratification is not strictly required where there is compelling evidence of ratification, particularly where the parties agreed to oral notification.

The Board concluded that a collective agreement was in effect from August 1, 1993 to July 31, 1996.