O. Hodges

The applicant union sought to set aside the results of a pre-hearing representation vote, arguing that the presence of the respondent employer's management personnel near the polling area intimidated voters.

The Board found that while it is preferable for management to absent themselves from the voting area, their mere presence, without evidence of electioneering, propagandizing, or other unfair labour practices, did not destroy the secrecy of the ballot or prevent employees from expressing their true wishes.

The application for certification was dismissed as the union failed to obtain more than fifty percent of the ballots cast.

The applicant hospital applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether three medical secretaries were employees within the meaning of the Act, arguing they should be excluded due to their confidential capacity in labour relations matters.

The union argued the status of one secretary was already settled in prior negotiations.

The Board dismissed the application regarding the first secretary, finding no material change in duties since the parties agreed to include the position in the bargaining unit.

For all three secretaries, the Board found their access to confidential board of directors' minutes was too remote to constitute a regular and material involvement in labour relations matters.

The Board concluded they were not employed in a confidential capacity and remained in the bargaining unit.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

At the hearing, after the Board established the bargaining unit and announced the membership count, the employer sought to amend the list of employees to include two previously excluded employees.

The union then requested to reconsider the bargaining unit composition to exclude office and clerical staff.

The Board denied both requests, emphasizing that its rules and procedures are designed to prevent parties from gerrymandering employee lists or bargaining unit structures after the count is revealed.

Finding that more than 55% of the employees in the unit were members of the applicant, the Board granted certification without a representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent office, clerical, and technical employees of the respondent credit union.

The parties agreed on most matters but disputed the exclusion of several positions from the bargaining unit.

The Board determined that the Teller/Payroll Clerk, Headteller, Teller/Supervisor, Assistant Manager, and Loan Officer did not exercise managerial functions or act in a confidential capacity relating to labour relations, and were therefore included in the unit.

However, the Steno/Receptionist was excluded due to her confidential duties.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

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

The intervener, the incumbent union, argued that the applicant must first prove its status as a trade union before a vote could be directed.

The Board, following its previous jurisprudence, held that there was no reason to single out the trade union status issue for special treatment and directed the pre-hearing vote, deferring the resolution of the status issue to a subsequent hearing.

One Board Member dissented, arguing that directing a vote before status is proven misleads employees and disrupts established bargaining relationships.

The applicant sought an exemption from paying union dues based on his religious convictions under section 47 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent union requested the application be dismissed without a hearing because it was untimely, as the applicant commenced employment after the collective agreement containing the union security clause was first entered into.

The applicant argued the timeliness restriction was discriminatory and conflicted with the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Board held that the statutory language was clear and unequivocal, and that the Code does not have primacy over the Labour Relations Act.

The application was dismissed without a hearing for failing to make out a prima facie case.

In an application for certification, a pre-hearing representation vote resulted in a tie with four segregated ballots.

The Board held a hearing to determine the eligibility of the employees who cast the segregated ballots.

Applying the 'seven week rule', the Board determined that one employee was eligible to vote as a full-time employee, while the others were ineligible as part-time employees or students employed during the school vacation period.

Because counting the single eligible segregated ballot would reveal how that employee voted, the Board directed that a new representation vote be taken to preserve the secrecy of the ballot.

The applicant union applied to displace the incumbent union as the bargaining agent for the respondent's plant employees.

The applicant won the representation vote.

The incumbent union argued that the application should be dismissed under section 13 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the employer provided support to the applicant.

The incumbent also argued that the vote was invalid because the employer failed to implement an arbitration award requiring the discharge of employees who did not pay union dues.

The Board found no evidence of employer support for the applicant and concluded that the employer's response to the arbitration award did not invalidate the vote.

The Board certified the applicant union.

The applicant union sought certification for a single bargaining unit comprising employees at three of the respondent's plants.

The respondent argued that three separate single-plant units were appropriate.

Applying the Usarco criteria, the Board considered the community of interest, centralization of managerial authority, economic factors, and source of work.

The Board found that the lack of employee interchange, the identical nature of the work, and the considerable autonomy of the individual plant managers tilted the balance in favour of three separate units.

The application was dismissed with respect to one unit due to insufficient membership support, and the ballots for the other two units were ordered to be counted.

The union applied for certification for employees at a single K Mart department store in Metropolitan Toronto.

The employer argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should encompass all four of its stores in the municipality, relying on the Board's general practice for retail stores.

The Board found that the single store unit was appropriate, noting that local management controlled day-to-day employment relations, there was little interchange of employees between stores, and the union had organized on a single store basis.

The Board emphasized that requiring a municipal-wide unit would effectively impede the employees' access to collective bargaining.

Certificates were issued for the full-time and part-time units at the single store.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied for certification to represent five part-time registered nurses employed by the Manitoulin Nursing Home.

The respondent employer argued that the nurses exercised managerial functions and were therefore not 'employees' under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the nurses' limited supervisory and coordinating duties were inherent to their professional training and did not constitute managerial authority, as they did not make decisions affecting the economic lives of fellow employees.

The Board concluded the nurses were employees within the meaning of the Act and granted the certificate.

The respondent employer requested that the Board reconsider its decision to certify a bargaining unit of part-time employees and summer students.

The employer argued that the Board should have applied the build-up principle and deferred the application until the summer student complement increased.

The Board found no basis to reconsider its decision, noting that its historical policy is not to permit a cyclical increase in summer students to defer an application made at another time of the year, and that the employer's arguments regarding turnover were not supported by evidence presented at the hearing.

The intervener trade union objected to the results of a representation vote, alleging that an employee supporting the applicant union violated the silent period by attempting to persuade other employees at a social event.

The Board dismissed the objection, finding that a conversation between employees at an unconnected social event did not constitute 'campaigning' or an organized attempt to persuade.

A certificate was issued to the applicant union.

The applicant union and intervener union both applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent.

The respondent argued that the representation vote should be delayed until July 1982 due to a planned build-up of its workforce.

The Board applied the planned build-up principle, balancing the rights of current and future employees.

Finding that the expansion beyond January 1982 was dependent on uncertain market factors, the Board determined that a representative group of employees would be present by August 1, 1981, and ordered an immediate representation vote.

The Town of Gananoque sought a declaration under section 95(2) of the Labour Relations Act that an accounting clerk was not an employee within the meaning of section 1(3)(b) due to her employment in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

The majority of the Board found that the clerk's access to sensitive written material prepared for the Town's bargaining committee created a conflict of interest, justifying her exclusion from the bargaining unit.

A dissenting member argued her involvement was too peripheral to warrant exclusion.

The complainant subcontractor filed a complaint under section 81 of the Labour Relations Act regarding a jurisdictional dispute over caulking work on precast concrete panels.

The respondent Carpenters Union challenged the Board's jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, arguing that its grievance was against the general contractor for violating a subcontracting clause, not a demand for work assignment from the complainant.

The Board found that the general contractor, bound by conflicting provincial agreements, had pressured the complainant to assign the work to the Carpenters.

The Board held this constituted 'requiring' the subcontractor to assign work within the meaning of section 81(1), giving the Board jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The applicant employees' association applied for certification.

The intervener union requested reconsideration of a pre-hearing vote direction and challenged the applicant's status as a trade union.

The Board heard evidence regarding the formation of the applicant association, including the drafting of a constitution, holding of a meeting, admission of members, ratification of the constitution, and election of officers.

The Board found that the procedures adopted by the four founding employees were sufficient to establish the association as a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1)(n) of the Labour Relations Act.

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

The intervener union argued the application was untimely because it was made on the same day a conciliation officer was appointed.

The Board found the application timely under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, as it was not made after the day the conciliation officer was appointed.

The Board directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be taken.

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

An intervener employees' association also applied for certification but did not request a vote.

Because the intervener had not previously established its status as a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, the applicant requested that the pre-hearing vote be deferred until the intervener's status was determined.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the applicant's request, distinguishing prior cases where the applicant's own status was in question, and directed that the matter be listed for a hearing to allow the intervener to establish its trade union status before any vote is held.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of part-time employees and students.

The respondent employer objected, arguing that the application should be deferred under the 'build-up' principle because it planned to hire additional students for a new summer outdoor cafe.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rejected this argument, holding that the build-up principle does not apply to normal seasonal fluctuations in the workforce outside of historically-recognized industries like canning and tobacco-harvesting.

The Board found the current complement of part-time employees to be representative for most of the year and granted certification.