Orval R. McGuire

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent part-time and casual nurses at the responding hospital.

A representation vote was held within five days of the application, resulting in a majority for the union.

The employer challenged the vote, arguing the short timeframe and single voting day provided insufficient notice and access for casual employees.

The Board dismissed this objection, finding the statutory five-day quick vote model applied and the parties' own efforts ensured adequate notice.

On the issue of the bargaining unit description, the Board agreed with the employer that the part-time unit should 'mirror' the historical full-time unit, which was restricted to nurses providing direct nursing care, to avoid serious labour relations harm.

A final certificate was issued for the restricted unit.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by discontinuing the practice of providing free movie passes to newly unionized front-of-house employees immediately after their first collective agreement was signed.

The employer argued it was merely enforcing an 'entire agreement' clause.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the employer was entitled to rely on the clause, its differential treatment of the front-of-house staff compared to unionized projectionists (who continued to receive passes) demonstrated an anti-union animus.

The Board declared a violation of section 72 and ordered the employer to cease and desist the discriminatory practice.

The Christian Labour Association of Canada (CLAC) applied for certification to displace the incumbent union, Local 47, as the bargaining agent for roofers at Covertite Eastern Limited.

Local 47 alleged that the employer and working foremen unlawfully supported CLAC's organizing campaign.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer, motivated by a desire for lower labour rates, clearly communicated its preference for CLAC to the employees and linked future work opportunities to supporting CLAC over Local 47.

Concluding that this constituted employer support under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act, the Board dismissed CLAC's certification application.

The applicant trade union referred a grievance to the Board alleging the employer failed to pay proper wage rates under the provincial ICI agreement for work performed at a Dofasco project.

The employer asserted the work was maintenance covered by a project agreement.

The General Presidents' Maintenance Committee for Canada (G.P.C.) and Dofasco sought standing to intervene.

The Board held that neither had standing as of right, as they were not bound by the ICI agreement.

However, the Board exercised its discretion to grant standing to the G.P.C. given its role in administering maintenance agreements and the potential impact on the collective bargaining system.

Dofasco was denied standing.

The applicant trade union applied under section 114(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the 'Weekend Editor' is an employee within the meaning of the Act.

The responding party employer argued the position was managerial and that the Board should decline to hear the application due to delay and because the underlying issue would be resolved at arbitration.

The Board declined to dismiss the application, finding no acquiescence by the union and noting that a determination of employee status serves a useful labour relations purpose.

The Board authorized a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the duties and responsibilities of the Weekend Editor.

The union filed multiple applications for certification for different bargaining units of the employer.

The employer argued that the union was abusing the process to impose a statutory freeze on terms and conditions of employment, and requested that the Board impose a bar on further applications or order a representation vote.

The Board found no evidence of duplicitous conduct by the union, noting that the appropriate bargaining unit was genuinely in dispute.

The Board declined to impose a bar or order a vote, granted leave to withdraw the earlier applications, and issued a certificate to the union for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

The union argued the application was untimely under section 62(3) of the Labour Relations Act because a lawful strike had commenced.

The employer intervened, arguing no strike had occurred because the picketing taxi drivers did not disrupt the employer's dispatch operations or withhold rental fees.

The Board held that while there was no actual disruption to the employer's business, the union's concerted picketing activity was designed to restrict or limit output.

Therefore, a strike had occurred, rendering the decertification application untimely.

The application was dismissed.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of employees at a greenhouse.

The employer argued the application should be deferred until the fall harvest season when the workforce would be significantly larger due to the seasonal nature of the business.

Intervening employees alleged that the union's membership evidence was collected using intimidation and misrepresentation regarding job security and seniority.

The Board declined to defer the application, finding the workforce at the time of application was sufficiently representative of the core regular employees.

The Board also dismissed the allegations of improper conduct, finding no material misrepresentation or coercion that would cast doubt on the voluntariness of the membership evidence.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union filed a complaint alleging the school board contravened the strike replacement provisions of the Labour Relations Act by planning to use regular teachers to perform the work of occasional teachers during a threatened strike.

The strike was averted when a collective agreement was reached.

The school board argued the complaint was moot and requested the Board decline to inquire into it.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, exercising its discretion under section 91 of the Act to refuse to render an advisory opinion on a hypothetical scenario where the concrete dispute had disappeared.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether an employer can request a final offer vote under section 40 of the Labour Relations Act after first agreement arbitration has been initiated under section 41.

The union argued that because section 41(13) prohibits strikes or lock-outs once first agreement arbitration is initiated, the precondition for a final offer vote cannot be met.

The employer argued that the provisions could operate simultaneously.

The Board held that the opening words of section 40 establish a precondition that strike or lock-out activity must be available.

Since section 41(13) eliminates the possibility of a strike or lock-out, an employer cannot request a final offer vote after first agreement arbitration has been initiated.