O. Hodges

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for part-time graduate and research assistants at York University.

The Board had previously ruled in 1975 that these assistants were not employees under the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant argued that circumstances and the Board's approach had changed, citing a recent decision involving Carleton University.

The Board found that the graduate assistantship program at York was primarily a financial aid scheme to assist needy students and attract them to the university, rather than an employment relationship based on the university's dependency on their work.

The Board concluded that the assistants were not employees within the meaning of the Act and dismissed the application.

The applicant trade union sought to withdraw its application for certification because the respondent employer had gone out of business.

The intervener requested that the application be dismissed and a time bar imposed under section 92 of the Labour Relations Act, as a representation vote had already been directed.

The Board dismissed the application but declined to impose a time bar, noting that the respondent was no longer in business, the construction industry context involves fluctuating workforces, and the applicant's membership evidence had not been fully tested due to unresolved issues regarding the representation votes.

The applicant union applied under section 95(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine whether three municipal employees exercised managerial functions and were thus excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board reviewed the duties of the water supervisor, arena manager, and building inspector/zoning administrator.

The Board found that the water supervisor's supervisory duties were incidental to his physical work and he did not exercise managerial functions.

However, the arena manager and the building inspector exercised sufficient independent decision-making authority over hiring, scheduling, and discipline to be considered managerial.

The applicant, a temporary full-time employee, filed a complaint alleging she was discharged for her union activities contrary to section 58 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant had circulated a petition and confronted the union president regarding the union's failure to enforce preferential hiring rights for temporary employees.

The Board found that the employer was aware of the applicant's efforts to gain effective union representation and that this knowledge was instrumental in the decision to terminate her without allowing her to compete for a remaining temporary job.

The Board concluded the termination violated the Act and ordered compensation for lost wages and preferential consideration for future permanent positions.

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

The respondent and objectors argued that truck drivers, servicemen, and motor vehicle mechanics should be excluded from the unit due to a separate community of interest.

The Board applied the Usarco factors and found that the employees did not comprise a unit of such diverse interests and functions to warrant exclusion from an all-employee unit.

The Board also declined to exercise its discretion to conduct a vote on the appropriateness of the unit.

A formal certificate was issued to the applicant.

The union applied for certification for employees of Bright Veal Meat Packers Ltd. The employer requested that the Board apply section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act to treat Bright Veal and Globe Wholesale Meats Inc. as one employer, arguing they were associated businesses under common control.

The Board found comprehensive integration and significant intermingling of employees between the two operations.

The Board declared the two companies to be one employer to prevent undue fragmentation of bargaining rights.

As the union did not have sufficient membership support in the combined bargaining unit, the application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the respondent school board violated the subcontracting provision of the provincial collective agreement by awarding a construction contract to a non-union general contractor.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the respondent was acting in its capacity as an owner letting a primary contract, rather than as an employer in the construction industry subcontracting out work.

Because the respondent did not itself subcontract out any work, its actions did not fall within the purview of the collective agreement's subcontracting restriction.

The applicant, an association of graduate students in the chemistry department, applied for certification as a bargaining agent.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish its status as a trade union under the Labour Relations Act because its constitution was not properly ratified at a general meeting.

The Board also noted in obiter that a bargaining unit restricted to a single university department would be inappropriate due to the risk of fragmentation.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by refusing to allow the union to have legal counsel present during a grievance meeting.

The employer moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing there is no statutory or common law right to counsel during an in-house grievance procedure.

The Board dismissed the complaint, holding that a grievance procedure is a private process, not a quasi-judicial proceeding, and therefore the rules of natural justice do not apply.

However, the Board noted the union could potentially amend its complaint to argue that the employer's refusal interfered with the union's internal right to determine its own representation.

The Board received letters from objecting employees requesting reconsideration of its decision granting certification to the union.

The Board denied the request, finding no new evidence was presented that could not have been adduced at the original hearing.

The Board also clarified its remedial order regarding management's access to employees, stating it does not prohibit conversations unrelated to the union or employment terms.

Finally, the Board revoked the portion of its order requiring compensation to two employees for unfair labour practices, pending further submissions on its jurisdiction to award such compensation.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that two related construction companies constituted one employer and were bound by its collective agreement.

The respondent companies were under common control, but one operated as a unionized company while the other operated non-union.

When the unionized company was denied a subcontract because it lacked affiliation with the Carpenters union, the non-union company signed a voluntary recognition agreement with the Carpenters to secure the work.

The Board found that the Carpenters' bargaining rights were validly acquired based on pre-existing contractual obligations and declined to exercise its discretion to revoke those rights, dismissing the application.

The applicant union applied for certification of a tag-end unit of approximately thirteen foremen.

The respondent employer argued the foremen exercised managerial functions and should be excluded under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board examined the duties and responsibilities of the foremen, finding that while they exercised supervisory functions, they did not have effective control and authority over the employees they supervised, as they lacked the power of effective recommendation in hiring, firing, and discipline.

The Board concluded the foremen were employees entitled to engage in collective bargaining, with the exception of one accounting/billing foreman who had the authority to hire and was thus excluded.

The applicant union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the respondent employer.

During the union's organizing campaign, the employer engaged in extensive anti-union conduct, including the overt surveillance and harassment of two key union organizers, holding repeated anti-union meetings with small groups of employees, intimidating employees who were scheduled to testify before the Board, and discharging an employee for his pro-union sympathies.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's egregious violations of the Labour Relations Act created a chilling effect that prevented the true wishes of the employees from being ascertained.

Concluding that the union's 40% membership support was adequate for collective bargaining, the Board exercised its discretion under section 7a of the Act to certify the union.

The Board also ordered comprehensive remedial relief, including cease and desist orders, union access to the workplace, a posting order, and $500 in damages to each of the two harassed employees.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the respondents, Hugh Murray (1974) Limited and Trend Building Systems, were one employer.

The Board found that both companies were owned and controlled by the same individual, engaged in related construction activities, and operated from the same premises.

The Board granted the declaration, piercing the corporate veil to prevent the erosion of bargaining rights, and held that the union's province-wide bargaining rights applied to both entities.

In an application for certification in the construction industry, the union challenged the inclusion of five individuals on the employer's list of employees.

A labour relations officer was appointed to inquire into the dispute.

The employer failed to call a witness before the officer but sought to call the witness before the Board.

The Board, by majority, allowed the witness to testify.

Based on the evidence, the Board concluded that two of the challenged individuals were construction labourers employed on the application date, while the other three were not.

The Board deferred the determination of the identity of the true employer and the related employer application, directing the matter to be relisted for hearing.

The applicant trade union applied for a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Trans-Nation Incorporated and Valentine Enterprises Contracting constituted one employer.

While the Board assumed the two entities were under common control or direction, it found they were not carrying on associated or related activities.

Trans-Nation was engaged in acquiring and refurbishing commercial buildings, whereas Valentine performed sewer and watermain work.

The Board concluded the businesses did not serve the same market or employ the same mode of production.

The application was dismissed, with one Board Member dissenting.

A concurring decision by Board Member O. Hodges of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, stating his agreement with his colleagues.

The concurrence renders the Board's earlier decision of October 16, 1980, unanimous.

The applicant trade union applied for a pre-hearing representation vote under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board declined to direct the vote and dismissed the application because all the persons the applicant claimed to represent had applied for membership in a trade union other than the applicant.

A concurring opinion suggested that the Board's procedures should be altered to allow an applicant to amend the style of cause immediately upon filing when the membership cards name the parent organization rather than the local union applicant.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

An objecting employee alleged that a union organizer told her she would not be permitted to work unless she joined the union.

The objector had not filed prior notice or particulars of this allegation as required by Rule 47.

The Board declined to appoint a Board Officer or order a representation vote immediately, but, balancing natural justice and the risk of delay, exercised its discretion to allow the unrepresented objector an opportunity to file particulars and adduce evidence at a further hearing.

One Board member dissented, arguing the union should be certified without delay.

The applicant union sought certification for employees of the respondent at its Hamilton and London clinics.

The parties disputed the inclusion of two employees in the bargaining units.

The respondent argued that the Assistant Director at Hamilton should be excluded under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act or for lack of community of interest, but the Board restricted the issue to section 1(3)(b) based on prior proceedings and found she was not excluded.

The Board found that the Consultant at London spent the vast majority of her time performing sales and office functions and was therefore excluded from the bargaining unit as office and sales staff.

Certificates were issued for both bargaining units.