Owen V. Gray

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit consisting of all employees of the respondent, including both warehouse and office/clerical staff.

The respondent employer and objecting employees argued that office and clerical staff should be placed in a separate bargaining unit, relying on historical Board policy.

The Board rejected the argument that exceptional circumstances were required to combine the groups, noting that modern workplaces have evolved.

Applying the community of interest test, the Board found that the employees shared common hours, benefits, wage determination methods, and frequently transferred between office and warehouse roles.

The Board concluded that the all-employee unit was appropriate and certified the applicant.

The applicant union sought leave to withdraw its application for certification after entering into a voluntary recognition agreement with the respondent employer.

An affected employee objected, requesting that the Board continue to address outstanding issues and require a supervised vote.

The Board noted that it would not require an applicant to pursue an application it did not wish to pursue, and dismissed the application without a bar.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, alleging the respondent employer breached the Teamsters provincial agreement by failing to apply its provisions to dump truck drivers hauling excavated material on and from a construction site.

The parties asked the Board to determine a preliminary question: assuming the project falls within the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector, is hauling excavated material on and from the project covered by the provincial agreement?

The Board majority held that the drivers were 'teamsters engaged on on-site construction' within the Ministerial designation, and therefore fell within the scope of the provincial agreement, even when hauling material to off-site locations.

One Board member dissented.

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

The respondent employer and an objecting employee coalition opposed the request, arguing that an earlier certification application by the applicant remained outstanding and that many of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit exercised managerial functions.

The Board directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be conducted, finding that the statutory prerequisites were met and that the outstanding issues regarding the composition of the bargaining unit and the prior application could be resolved after the vote.

The Board also directed a separate vote for professional engineers to determine if they wished to be included in a bargaining unit with other employees.

One Board member dissented, stating he would not permit the application to proceed while the first application remained active.

The applicant employee applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The Board dismissed the application with respect to the non-ICI sector as untimely, having been brought less than six months after certification.

For the ICI sector, the union argued the Board should exercise its discretion to refuse to entertain the application due to the short time since certification.

The Board held it had no such discretion under section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act because the union's prior certification application was not 'unsuccessful'.

Despite the applicant having admitted to lying to the Board in the prior certification proceedings regarding the origination of a petition, the Board found his testimony in the current proceeding plausible and concluded the new petition was a voluntary expression of employee wishes.

A representation vote was ordered.

The applicant union brought an application alleging a sale of business and seeking a related employer declaration against several corporate respondents.

Despite being served with notice and a Board order to produce documents and adduce evidence, the respondents failed to appear.

The Board relied on the union's evidence, including corporate records and a labour and material payment bond, to find that the respondents were under common control and direction and that a sale of business had occurred.

The Board declared the respondents to be a single employer bound by the provincial collective agreement.

The applicant union referred grievances to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent employers violated the collective agreement by reducing their hourly remittances to the union's benefit fund.

The employers argued that the enactment of the Employer Health Tax Act, which eliminated OHIP premiums and imposed a payroll tax, frustrated the collective agreement and resulted in unjust enrichment for the fund, as the fund no longer had to pay OHIP premiums.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the collective agreement required a fixed hourly remittance and did not allocate a specific portion to OHIP premiums.

The Board found no frustration of contract or unjust enrichment, and ordered the employers to remit the full amounts owed with interest.

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

The employer argued that a planned build-up of the workforce and alleged misconduct by union organizers warranted a representation vote instead of automatic certification.

The Board found the build-up plan was not sufficiently firm or large enough to justify a deferred vote, and that the union organizers' conduct did not exceed acceptable bounds.

The Board also found that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by questioning employees about their union involvement.

The union was certified without a vote, and the employer's unfair labour practice complaint was dismissed.

The applicant parent union applied for certification shortly after its local union's application for the same unit was dismissed and a six-month bar was imposed.

The respondent employer objected, arguing that the parent and local were the same entity under the union's constitution, or alternatively, that the Board should exercise its discretion to refuse the new application.

The Board held that the parent union and its local are distinct trade unions under the Labour Relations Act.

Finding no compelling reason to exercise its discretion to bar the parent union's application, the Board dismissed the respondent's objections and directed that the application be entertained.

One Board Member dissented.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties disagreed on whether sales staff and cashiers should be included in the bargaining unit with yard workers and truck drivers.

The union requested the appointment of a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the community of interest, while the respondent employer argued the Board should hear evidence directly.

The Board directed the appointment of a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into and report on the community of interest and the nature of the work performed by specific individuals.

The Society of Ontario Hydro Professional and Administrative Employees filed an application and complaint asserting that its existing agreements with Ontario Hydro constituted a collective agreement under the Labour Relations Act.

Ontario Hydro and an intervener argued that the agreements were not a collective agreement and that the Society was estopped from asserting otherwise.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the doctrine of estoppel could apply to prevent a party from asserting that an agreement is a collective agreement under the Act.

Finding that the Society had historically represented to Hydro that their agreements were outside the Act, and that Hydro had relied on these representations in entering into the 1983 Master Agreement, the Board concluded that the Society was estopped from now claiming the agreements constituted a collective agreement.

The application and complaint were dismissed.

The applicant union filed an application for certification under the name of its Toronto Joint Board, but the membership evidence submitted was in the name of the international union.

The Board granted the applicant's unopposed request to amend the application to name the international union as the applicant.

However, the Board declined to proceed with the application without first providing fresh notice to the affected employees, emphasizing that employees have a right to notice and an opportunity to participate before a decision is made.

The Board directed the Registrar to issue new notices reflecting the amended applicant name and extended the terminal date.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated the statutory freeze by changing its policy on credit card tip vouchers and that it terminated a key union organizer due to anti-union animus.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's instruction regarding credit card vouchers did not violate the statutory freeze, as servers never had a right or privilege to include gratuities in the top box of the voucher.

Furthermore, the Board concluded that the employee was discharged solely because he dishonestly altered a customer's credit card voucher to increase his tip, and not because of his union activities.

The complaint was dismissed.

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

The parties agreed on a proposed bargaining unit that differed from the incumbent union's unit by including temporary and salaried employees.

The Board established two voting constituencies—one corresponding to the incumbent's unit and another for the add-on segment—and directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be conducted in each constituency.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging that the employer's intention to implement a direct deposit system for paying wages violated the collective agreement, which required payment 'by cash' or 'by cheque'.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that direct deposit is neither payment by cash nor by cheque, as 'payment' means payment directly to the worker, and 'by cash' means payment of legal tender directly to the worker.

The Board declared that payment of wages by direct deposit would not comply with the collective agreement.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether Head Secretaries employed by the respondent school board were employees within the meaning of the Act.

The respondent argued the Board should not entertain the application because the position was expressly excluded from the bargaining unit during certification.

The Board decided to answer the question, noting the union's allegation of a bargaining table agreement to determine the issue via section 106(2) and the resources already expended on the inquiry.

On the merits, the Board found that Head Secretaries do not exercise managerial functions or act in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations under section 1(3)(b).

The Board concluded they are employees under the Act.

The complainant requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsider its decision dismissing a complaint under section 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board had previously dismissed the complaint on the basis that no appropriate remedy existed, even if a violation had occurred.

The complainant argued it was entitled to a decision on the merits of the alleged violation.

The Board denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the complainant failed to identify any new evidence, new submissions, or an alternative remedy that would warrant varying the original decision.

The applicant trade union alleged that a sale of a business occurred between ComDev and Senstar Corporation, and sought a declaration that Senstar was bound by the existing collective agreement.

Senstar argued that only assets were transferred, that the union's geographic scope did not cover Senstar's location, and that the union's constitution did not permit Senstar employees to join.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the transfer of patents, technical expertise, customer lists, and goodwill constituted a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also interpreted the collective agreement's geographic scope liberally to include Senstar's location and found the union's constitutional amendment valid.

A representation vote was ordered due to the intermingling of employees.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and initially proposed a bargaining unit that excluded group leaders.

At the hearing, the parties agreed to amend the bargaining unit to include group leaders.

The applicant argued the Board should proceed without giving further notice to the group leaders.

The Board held that the group leaders were entitled to notice as their legal rights could be affected by the application.

The Board directed that a new Notice to Employees be posted and extended the terminal date.

The complainant's former counsel wrote to the Board requesting it reconvene to interpret a prior order that required the respondent union to retain and pay for counsel for the complainant.

The union had disputed the lawyer's retainer and refused to pay his account past a certain date.

The Vice-Chair declined to schedule a hearing, finding that the lawyer lacked standing to seek clarification or enforcement of the Board's order, as only the complainant and the union were parties to the order.

The Vice-Chair noted that disputes over a lawyer's retainer and unpaid accounts are proper subjects for the courts, not the Board.