O. Hodges

The union referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the employer failed to comply with bumping provisions in the province-wide collective agreement.

The union and the designated employer bargaining agency argued that a prior decision by the Joint Industry Committee (JIC) was final and binding.

The employer, who was not a member of the employer association, refused to comply.

The Board held that the designated bargaining agencies could not create a mechanism to impose a binding grievance settlement on an unwilling non-member employer, as their statutory authority is limited to conducting bargaining and concluding a provincial agreement.

The Board assumed jurisdiction to hear the grievance on its merits.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers should be removed from certain designated employee bargaining agencies in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector.

The local unions argued that the International Association had not historically participated in bargaining and had expressly disclaimed liability under the provincial agreements.

The Board held that the International Association should remain part of the designations, as its involvement could provide a beneficial overview and maturity to the provincial bargaining process, fulfilling the intent of the legislation.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of graduate students employed by the respondent university and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

Because the application was filed near the end of the academic year, the vast majority of the proposed bargaining unit's employment contracts terminated shortly after the application date.

The union requested that the Board depart from its normal voter eligibility rules and allow all persons employed on the application date to vote.

The Board declined this request, noting it would enfranchise many persons with no continuing interest in the unit.

Instead, recognizing the cyclical nature of the employment, the Board directed that the pre-hearing representation vote be deferred until October, when a representative number of employees would be in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The parties agreed to two separate bargaining units, one excluding mechanics and one excluding school bus drivers.

The Board expressed concern that this could result in undue fragmentation of the respondent's workforce.

The Board directed a pre-hearing representation vote using the first unit as the voting constituency, but permitted mechanics to cast segregated ballots.

A hearing was scheduled to follow the vote to determine the appropriate bargaining unit and address the respondent's request to bar the application.

The applicant, a university professor, applied under section 47 of the Labour Relations Act for an exemption from paying mandatory union dues to the faculty association on the basis of his religious beliefs.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the three-part Wybinga test.

While the Board accepted that the applicant held sincere religious beliefs, it found that his objections to the union were primarily socio-political, relating to the adversarial nature of unions in a university setting and the impact of strikes on students.

The majority concluded that the applicant was rationalizing his general objections to trade unions in terms of his religious beliefs, and dismissed the application.

One member dissented, finding the religious objection bona fide.

The applicant employer applied under section 59 of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration that the respondent union no longer represented its employees, alleging a failure to bargain.

The union had been certified in November 1979 and sent a notice to bargain, but failed to follow up or commence bargaining for over two years.

The union argued the application was untimely because it had recently requested the appointment of a conciliation officer.

The Board found the application timely as no officer had yet been appointed when it was filed.

Given the union's prolonged inactivity without justifiable reason, the Board ordered a representation vote to determine if the employees still wished to be represented by the union.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging the respondent general contractor violated the subcontracting clause of their collective agreement by subcontracting work to a non-union employer who used members of a competing union.

The respondent failed to appear at the hearing due to a misunderstanding that the matter was settled as a jurisdictional dispute.

The Board found the respondent failed to exercise reasonable diligence and refused to fully reopen the hearing.

However, recognizing the underlying issue was a jurisdictional dispute, the Board made contingent findings of liability and damages ($3,296.80) against the respondent, deferring final disposition for 10 days to allow any party to file a formal jurisdictional dispute claim.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of employees working at Thunder Bay International Airport.

The respondent employer objected, arguing the employees were security guards under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act and that the unit should not be confined to the airport.

The Board held that section 11 did not apply because the employees protected the airlines' property from hijackers, not in their capacity as employers.

The Board also found the single-location bargaining unit appropriate as there was no substantial interchange with other locations.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant sought certification to represent employees of the respondent and had to establish its status as a trade union under section 1(1)(p) of the Labour Relations Act.

The intervener argued that the applicant was not a valid trade union because it had not properly admitted members or elected a full slate of officers as required by its constitution.

The Board reviewed the steps taken by the applicant, including drafting and approving a constitution, admitting members, and electing four key officers by acclamation.

The Board found that despite not electing the five Executive Council Members, the applicant was a viable organization capable of carrying out its purposes.

The Board concluded that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Act and directed the matter to be listed for continuation of the hearing.

In an application for certification, the respondent employer alleged that an employee signed a union membership card but failed to pay the required $1.00 initiation fee.

The Board heard evidence from the employee, the collector, and other witnesses.

The majority of the Board found that the employee did not pay the $1.00 and that the collector had misled the union official who signed the Form 9 declaration.

Consequently, the Board declined to give any weight to the 20 membership cards collected by that individual.

The Board reserved its decision on whether to apply section 8 of the Act until the unfair labour practice allegations were heard.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote for employees of several construction companies.

The respondents and intervener raised complex issues, including whether the companies were related employers under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act and whether the intervener already held bargaining rights.

Despite these complexities, the Board directed a pre-hearing vote to ensure employees could vote before the construction workforce dispersed.

To accommodate the unresolved issue of the intervener's bargaining rights, the Board ordered a unique two-ballot procedure, with all ballots segregated and sealed pending a future hearing.

The applicant union alleged that Molson's Brewery transferred part of its business to two subcontractors, Charming Hostess Inc. and Amsterdam Catering Services Limited, or alternatively, that the three entities should be treated as a single employer under the Labour Relations Act.

Molson's had closed its internal hospitality room and contracted with the respondents to provide upgraded food and hostess services in a new facility.

The Board found that Molson's had not disposed of part of its business but merely contracted for services to enhance its own operations.

The Board also declined to make a related employer declaration, noting the subcontractors were independent businesses and the union was attempting to extend, rather than preserve, its bargaining rights.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The respondent hospital opposed the vote, arguing the applicant lacked status to represent hospital office and clerical employees and that the application was an abuse of process due to a previously withdrawn application.

The Board directed that the pre-hearing representation vote be taken, noting the applicant had previously established its trade union status, and ordered the ballot box sealed pending a final determination of the respondent's objections at a subsequent hearing.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging that the employer's decision to lay off seven employees shortly after the union's organizing campaign was motivated by anti-union animus.

The employer contended the lay-offs were strictly due to a severe seasonal downturn in its aluminum extrusion business and the cancellation of major orders.

The Board found the employer's witnesses credible and supported by statistical evidence, concluding the lay-offs were motivated solely by bona fide business considerations.

The unfair labour practice complaint was dismissed, but the Board ordered a representation vote for the certification application.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint after the employer unilaterally subcontracted the work of its housekeeping, laundry, maintenance, and kitchen staff, terminating approximately one quarter of the bargaining unit.

This occurred during negotiations for a first collective agreement.

The Board found that the employer's decision was motivated by anti-union animus and a desire to avoid collective bargaining, violating several provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

Furthermore, the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith by failing to disclose and discuss its subcontracting plans during negotiations.

The Board ordered the employer to reinstate the terminated employees, compensate them for lost wages, and commence bargaining in good faith.

The applicant union applied for certification for two bargaining units of the respondent's employees.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and determined that the two proposed bargaining units were appropriate.

A statement of desire objecting to the certification was received after the terminal date and was not supported by any appearances at the hearing, so it was not considered.

For the first bargaining unit, the union demonstrated 56.41% membership support.

The Board declined the respondent's request to direct a representation vote, noting that the union's support exceeded the 55% threshold and no special circumstances warranted a vote.

A certificate was issued for the first unit.

The application for the second unit was dismissed as the union had less than 45% support.

In an application for certification, a representation vote was held.

The day before the vote, the employer laid off a significant number of employees due to the completion of a contract.

The ballots of the laid-off employees were segregated.

The union protested the segregation.

The Board held that employees on indefinite lay-off are generally ineligible to vote, but those with substantial and legitimate expectations of being recalled in the near future should not be disenfranchised.

The Board directed that the ballots of 11 laid-off employees who had returned to work or had a clear expectation of recall be counted, while the remaining 17 segregated ballots were not to be counted.

The union filed grievances under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act alleging that the respondent employer breached the collective agreement by subcontracting concrete forming work to employers who used members of the Labourers' union rather than the Carpenters' union.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the matter was essentially a jurisdictional dispute and that the Board should defer to the section 91 jurisdictional dispute mechanism.

The Board adjourned the section 124 proceedings for 21 days to allow the respondent to file a jurisdictional dispute, noting that the panel seized with the jurisdictional dispute would be the more appropriate forum to resolve all aspects of the case.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The parties agreed to two bargaining units for bus drivers, separating full-time from part-time and student employees.

Although the Board generally avoids restrictive bargaining unit descriptions confined to specific classifications, it accepted the agreement in this case due to the employer's unique operations, previous voluntary recognition of other units, and reliance on a prior Board decision.

The Board directed that pre-hearing representation votes be taken for both constituencies.

The applicants, a group of employees who opted out of a newly negotiated bargaining unit accretion, applied under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act to terminate the union's bargaining rights for the added classifications.

The union and the employer had negotiated an 'opt-in' formula where only employees who explicitly chose union representation were added to the unit.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicants lacked status to bring the challenge because, having opted out, they were not 'employees in the bargaining unit' as required by section 60.