O. R. McGuire

The applicant union sought a declaration of successor rights, arguing that the opening of a Ruth's Chris steakhouse in the hotel premises formerly occupied by Trader Vic's constituted a sale of a business under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union argued that the downtown location was a key asset transferred to the new restaurant.

The Board found that the transaction was merely a lease of space and that no part of the predecessor's business, other than the location itself, was transferred.

The application was dismissed.

The employer applied under section 5(2) of the Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act, 1995 (Bill 7) to separate its existing combined full-time and part-time bargaining units into distinct units.

The employer argued that Bill 7 codified a pre-1993 presumption that there is no community of interest between full-time and part-time employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rejected this argument, finding that Bill 7 did not codify such a presumption and that the Board must assess the specific circumstances of each case.

Based on the agreed facts, the Board found a clear community of interest between the full-time and part-time employees, as they performed the same duties under the same supervision, received the same training, and had similar conditions of employment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

The responding party asserted that the employees were already represented by an incumbent employees' association under a collective agreement.

Finding that the applicant had the requisite support, the Board directed a representation vote.

Voters will cast two ballots: one for representation by the applicant, and a second choosing between the applicant and the incumbent association, pending a future determination of the association's trade union status.

The union applied for certification and alleged unfair labour practices against the employer, including the termination of a union supporter and the circulation of an anti-union questionnaire by a managerial employee.

The Board found that the termination was motivated by anti-union animus and that the questionnaire constituted unlawful interference.

Concluding that a representation vote would not reflect the true wishes of the employees due to the chilling effect of the employer's actions, the Board granted automatic certification under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and ordered the reinstatement of the terminated employee with compensation.

The applicant trade union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging various violations of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by the responding employer.

The Board declared a sale of business had occurred and amended the responding party's name.

However, the Board exercised its discretion under section 96 of the Act not to inquire further into the complaint, finding that litigating the matter would likely interfere with ongoing collective bargaining between the parties.

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

Following a representation vote in favour of the union, a group of maintenance employees objected to being included in the same bargaining unit as production employees.

The Board dismissed the objection without a hearing, noting it is common practice to include production and maintenance employees in a single unit and there was no evidence that the agreed-upon unit lacked a sufficiently coherent community of interest.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union was certified by the Board under section 6(2) of the old Labour Relations Act pending the resolution of a dispute over the composition of the bargaining unit.

Shortly after, the new Labour Relations Act, 1995 came into force with retroactive transitional provisions applying to proceedings where a final decision had not been issued.

The responding party employer argued the new Act should apply and a representation vote should be held.

The Board held that a certification decision under section 6(2) (now 9(2)) is a final decision regarding the union's substantive right to certification.

Therefore, the transitional provisions did not apply and the certification remained valid.

A preliminary motion was brought to determine whether Local 73 had properly withdrawn from its parent International Union.

The Board applied the standard from a prior court decision, finding that the constitution and by-laws implicitly required rigorous notice and secret ballot voting procedures for a withdrawal to be valid.

Because the local union members voted by a show of hands rather than a secret ballot, the purported withdrawal was ineffective at law.

Consequently, the successorship application was dismissed, and the certification and combination applications were directed to proceed in the name of Local 73 under the International's trusteeship.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the Crown applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to determine five unresolved matters in their negotiation of an essential services agreement under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993.

The Board provided directions on the definition of essential versus emergency services, the arrangement of work hours, and the timing for selecting employees to provide essential services.

The Board declined to make determinations on the extension of non-classified contracts and the cessation of benefits during a strike, finding these issues lacked a sufficient connection to the statutory mandate for essential services agreements.

Following the merger of two hospitals, the union and the successor employer agreed that the union's bargaining rights would extend to the combined group of employees, including previously non-unionized employees.

The intervenors, representing the formerly non-unionized employees, requested that the Board exercise its discretion under section 64(6)(e) of the Labour Relations Act to dovetail their seniority lists with the unionized employees, giving them full credit for their past service.

The Board dismissed the request, deferring to the agreement between the union and the employer, and noting that seniority is a bargaining unit concept that does not exist prior to collective bargaining.

The applicant, a security guard, refused to work her night shift at an old post office, citing fears for her safety due to isolation, cold, lack of water, and potential intruders.

The responding party employer dismissed her for refusing the assignment.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant had a bona fide belief that the workplace was likely to endanger her, satisfying the subjective test under section 43 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The employer failed to properly investigate her concerns with her participation as required by the Act.

The Board concluded the dismissal was a reprisal in violation of section 50(1) and ordered reinstatement with compensation.

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.

The Board had to determine whether a discharged employee, who was ordered reinstated in a separate proceeding, should be included on the list of employees for the count.

The Board ruled she should be included, as she did not lose her employee status by being dismissed contrary to the Act.

The Board also refused to give weight to a petition faxed on the terminal date, as it violated the Board's Rules of Procedure.

Consequently, the applicant's support fell below the required 45% threshold after accounting for voluntary re-affirmations of union support.

The application was dismissed.