M. Rozenberg

The applicant union sought to displace the intervener union as the bargaining agent for the respondent's employees.

A representation vote was held.

The intervener and respondent requested that the vote be disregarded because the Board provided voting materials only in English and French, despite a large percentage of employees speaking Spanish or Punjabi.

They argued this violated the Human Rights Code and caused widespread confusion.

The Board reaffirmed its long-standing policy of providing documents only in English and French, noting that it is the responsibility of the parties to explain the process to employees who do not understand the official languages.

The request to retake the vote was denied.

The applicant applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights for employees of the intervener employer.

The Board determined that the application could only affect bargaining rights outside the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector, as no employees were working in the ICI sector on the application date.

The Board also rejected the union's argument that certain employees should be excluded from the unit because they were allegedly recalled from layoff contrary to the collective agreement, finding no evidence of employer manipulation.

Concluding that at least 45 per cent of the employees had voluntarily signified they no longer wished to be represented by the union, the Board directed a representation vote.

The respondent requested reconsideration of a Board decision, alleging the Vice-Chair acted as counsel for the unrepresented complainant.

The Board dismissed the request, noting it is standard practice to explain procedures to unrepresented parties and the respondent raised no new evidence.

The complainant notified the Board of the respondent's failure to pay the $4,500 ordered in the original decision.

The Board treated this as notification of non-compliance and directed that the determination be filed with the Supreme Court for enforcement.

The complainant made a second request for reconsideration of a Board decision that allowed his complaint to be withdrawn following a settlement.

The complainant argued that he was mentally incapacitated at the time he agreed to the settlement and was unable to properly represent himself.

The employer opposed the request, arguing for finality in legal proceedings.

The Board decided to schedule a hearing solely to determine whether it should reconsider its earlier decision based on the complainant's alleged mental incapacity, placing the burden on the complainant to establish his incapacity at the relevant time.

The complainant alleged he was discharged contrary to section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after raising safety concerns and speaking with a Ministry of Labour inspector.

The respondent claimed the discharge was solely due to the complainant's poor timekeeping.

The Board denied the respondent's request for an adjournment.

On the merits, the Board found the respondent failed to prove the discharge was untainted by anti-safety animus, noting the timing of the termination immediately following the inspector's visit and the lack of prior discipline for tardiness.

The Board awarded the complainant $4,500 in damages.

The union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that section 40a was unavailable because it had previously been party to a collective agreement with a displaced union.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that section 40a applies where the specific parties have been unable to effect their first collective agreement.

On the merits, the Board found that the collective bargaining process was unsuccessful due to the employer's failure to make reasonable or expeditious efforts to conclude an agreement, particularly its refusal to negotiate following union concessions, and its uncompromising bargaining position without reasonable justification.

The Board directed the settlement of the first collective agreement by arbitration.

One Board member dissented.

The complainant union and employee alleged that the respondent college discharged the employee because he supported and was expected to testify in another employee's grievance arbitration, contrary to section 80(1) of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act.

The Board found that the employee's attitude and performance had deteriorated significantly after he was bumped from a full-time position, characterized by chronic lateness and insubordination.

The Board concluded that the discharge was the inevitable result of the employee's poor conduct and insubordination, culminating in a confrontation with his supervisor, and was not motivated by anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed.

Following a finding that the respondent breached section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to disclose its intention to shut down a turbine during collective bargaining, the Board held a hearing to determine the appropriate remedy.

The complainant union sought monetary compensation for lost wages, lost opportunities for increased wages, and expenses incurred.

The Board dismissed the claims for monetary damages, finding insufficient evidence that the union could have negotiated a better outcome or retained the positions had the disclosure been made.

The Board issued a declaration of the breach but declined to award further compensatory relief.

One Board Member dissented, stating he would have awarded the compensatory relief claimed.

The union and the employer agreed to have the Board arbitrate their first collective agreement pursuant to section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The parties agreed on most terms but remained in dispute over seniority loss provisions, shift premiums, and the wage schedule.

The Board resolved the disputed items, rejecting the employer's proposed two-tier wage structure, establishing a probationary wage grid, and setting the wage rates and premiums.

The Board directed that the collective agreement consist of the agreed items and the awarded terms.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent part-time employees at a single movie theatre owned by the respondent.

The respondent argued that a single theatre was not an appropriate bargaining unit and that the unit should encompass all of its theatres in the region or city to avoid undue fragmentation.

The Board reviewed its jurisprudence on single-branch bargaining units and concluded that, while broader units have advantages, requiring a multi-branch unit would create an obstacle to organizing.

The Board found the single theatre to be an appropriate bargaining unit and granted the certificate.

The union brought an application for a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act and an unfair labour practice complaint under section 89.

The union alleged that the employer's purchase of a non-unionized plant, transfer of work, and subsequent layoff of bargaining unit employees were motivated by anti-union animus.

The Board found that the employer's actions were motivated by bona fide business reasons, including the declining market and obsolete equipment at the unionized plant.

The unfair labour practice complaint was dismissed.

The Board granted the related employer declaration on consent but declined to extend the geographic scope of the collective agreement to the non-unionized plant.

In an application for certification, the applicant union requested that the Board direct the respondent employer to post notices at seventeen different work sites or, alternatively, supply employee addresses for service by mail.

The Board, following its practice for security guards with irregular work patterns or multiple sites, directed the employer to provide a list of employee addresses so that notice of the application could be mailed directly to the affected employees.

The terminal date for the application was extended accordingly.

The union filed complaints alleging that the employer failed to bargain in good faith, interfered with the union's representation rights, and engaged in an unlawful lock-out by transferring work to a related, unorganized entity.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer breached the Labour Relations Act by failing to send an informed committee to negotiations, failing to disclose its intention to move work, bargaining directly with employees, and locking out employees to undermine the union.

The Board ordered the employer to cease and desist, return the transferred work, compensate employees for lost wages, and provide the union with employee addresses.

The complainant alleged he was discharged contrary to section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act for raising safety concerns and participating in a health and safety committee.

The employer maintained the discharge was solely because the complainant deliberately or recklessly struck a fellow employee's hand with a hammer, causing serious injury.

The Board found the employer's decision was not tainted by anti-safety animus and was based entirely on the complainant's violent conduct and prior disciplinary record.

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

The applicant union applied for certification and a representation vote was held, resulting in a substantial majority in favour of the union.

However, the employer was unable to post the Form 70 Notice to Employees of the vote results until the day before the time fixed for objections.

Out of an abundance of caution, the Board directed the employer to post this decision and extended the time for employees to contest the election results to January 21, 1990.

If no persuasive representations are received, a certificate will issue.

The applicant union sought certification.

The respondent employer and objecting employees alleged that the membership evidence was tainted by the improper conduct of a rank and file employee who acted as a collector.

They alleged he threatened job security and misrepresented the union's two-tier initiation fee structure.

The Board found that the collector was not a union official and his statements, while improper in some respects, would not have deterred or unduly influenced a reasonable employee.

The Board concluded the membership evidence was voluntary and certified the union.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent occasional teachers and part-time supply instructors employed by the newly created French-language school board.

The respondent board argued it was not yet the employer of these individuals and raised issues regarding the bargaining unit description and the inclusion of certain employees transferred under recent legislation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant had the requisite appearance of support of not less than 35 per cent of the employees in the voting constituency and directed the taking of a pre-hearing representation vote, leaving the substantive issues to be resolved at a subsequent hearing.

The applicant union applied for certification.

During the hearing, the Board inquired into the reliability of the Form 9 Declaration concerning membership evidence.

The Board found that the Form 9 declarant failed to make the necessary inquiries of the collector to ensure that each applicant for membership had personally paid the required one dollar.

Because the Form 9 Declaration was deemed unreliable, the Board dismissed the application for certification.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed a timely petition opposing the certification, which included signatures of some employees who had previously signed union membership cards.

The Board held a hearing to determine whether the petition represented a voluntary change of heart.

The Board found that while some signatures were voluntary, others were obtained after the employer made statements implying that unionization would lead to job losses.

Consequently, the Board discounted the involuntary signatures.

Even accepting the voluntary signatures, the union retained the support of more than 55% of the bargaining unit.

The Board therefore granted certification without a representation vote.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's soil preparation business.

The parties disputed whether part-time employees should be excluded from the unit and whether the respondent's operation was excluded from the Labour Relations Act as an agricultural or horticultural enterprise under sections 2(b) or 2(c).

The Board found that the respondent had an established practice of hiring part-time employees during its peak season, warranting their exclusion from the bargaining unit.

Furthermore, the Board determined that the respondent's business of processing natural products into soil for the home garden market was a commercial enterprise, not agriculture or horticulture.

The Board directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.