Owen V. Gray

The complainant union alleged that the respondents, Chinook Chemicals Company and G. Lemaire, violated the Labour Relations Act by depriving a truck driver of employment because of his union support.

Lemaire, an owner-operator who leased his truck to Chinook, took over driving his truck full-time from the complainant's member shortly before a union ratification vote.

The Board found that Chinook did not violate the Act as it merely acquiesced to Lemaire's lawful exercise of his right to drive his own truck.

The Board further held that even if Lemaire's statements to the driver constituted intimidation under section 70, the requested remedy of reinstatement was inappropriate because Lemaire had a lawful right to resume driving his truck.

The complaint was dismissed.

The objectors sought to set aside the results of a representation vote in a union certification application, alleging irregularities including improper challenges to voter eligibility, electioneering by union supporters, and intimidation near the polling area.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the objections, finding that the segregation of a challenged ballot followed standard procedure and did not compromise ballot secrecy.

The Board also found that the alleged electioneering and the presence of a union supporter near the polling area did not violate any specific Board direction, destroy the secrecy of the vote, or prevent the vote from revealing the true wishes of the employees.

The Board clarified a prior procedural direction regarding document production for the examination of persons whose employee status was in dispute.

The respondent argued the direction only required production of official job documents, while the applicant argued it required all documents relied upon.

The Board amended its direction to clarify that each party must produce every document in its possession, custody, or power on which it wishes to rely, and noted that parties are free to consult with examinees prior to their testimony to obtain relevant information.

The applicant trade union sought certification for a bargaining unit consisting of occasional teachers and supply instructors employed by the respondent school boards.

The Board considered whether supply instructors, who are unqualified persons appointed in emergencies, share a sufficient community of interest with occasional teachers to be included in the same unit.

Noting the evolution of collective bargaining practice and the functional similarities between the two groups, the Board found the proposed combined bargaining units to be appropriate and directed that certificates issue to the applicant.

The applicant union brought a related employer application and an unfair labour practice complaint concerning the transfer of work from one facility to another.

The respondents requested that the Board rule on preliminary issues regarding the scope of relief and deferral to arbitration.

As the hearing on the merits would require at least six days and would be heard by a differently constituted panel, the current panel declined to entertain the preliminary arguments.

The matter was adjourned to be scheduled for a hearing on the merits, leaving the preliminary issues for the new panel to decide.

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

After the vote was taken but before the ballots were counted, the applicant sought leave to withdraw its application, conceding it did not have sufficient membership evidence.

The Board refused leave to withdraw and dismissed the application.

The intervener requested that a six-month bar be imposed on future applications by the applicant under section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board declined to impose a bar, reasoning that a bar is typically only imposed when a representation vote has fully tested the true wishes of the employees, which was not the case here since the applicant's membership evidence was insufficient to warrant counting the ballots.

The applicant union applied for certification.

During the hearing, the Board inquired into the reliability of the Form 9 Declaration concerning membership evidence.

The Board found that the Form 9 declarant failed to make the necessary inquiries of the collector to ensure that each applicant for membership had personally paid the required one dollar.

Because the Form 9 Declaration was deemed unreliable, the Board dismissed the application for certification.

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

A discrepancy in the applicant's name raised an issue regarding its trade union status.

At the hearing, the applicant established that it was the same organization previously found to be a trade union in an earlier Board file, satisfying the requirements of section 105 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board directed that the unsegregated ballots from the pre-hearing vote be counted and scheduled a separate hearing to address the applicant's complaint regarding alleged management misconduct during the vote.

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

The respondent and intervener challenged the applicant's trade union status and argued that a six-month bar from a previous unsuccessful application by a related union should apply.

The Board held that issues of trade union status and the application of a bar are to be determined after a pre-hearing vote is conducted.

Finding that the requisite 35% membership threshold was met, the Board directed the taking of a pre-hearing representation vote and ordered the ballot box sealed pending the resolution of the disputed issues.

The complainant alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to pursue grievances in 1978 and 1984, and by refusing to provide him with copies of those grievances.

The Board dismissed the complaint regarding the 1978 grievance due to extreme delay.

Regarding the 1984 return-to-work grievance, the Board found the union's decision not to proceed to arbitration was reasonable and not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

While the union's refusal to provide a copy of the grievance was arbitrary, the Board declined to grant a remedy as it caused no compensable loss and the union had since changed its policy.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and requested a pre-hearing vote.

The Board authorized a Labour Relations Officer (LRO) to examine the respondent employer's records.

The employer refused to provide the required employee lists or allow access to its records, arguing the application was untimely due to an existing collective agreement with an incumbent union.

The Board directed the LRO to reconvene the meeting, demand access to the records, and warn the employer that interfering with the investigation could result in contempt proceedings under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The applicant union filed a certification application requesting a pre-hearing representation vote.

A prior certification application by the same union for the same employees was still outstanding, pending a decision on the union's request to withdraw it and the employer's request to impose a bar.

The majority of the Board held that subsection 103(3) of the Labour Relations Act does not preclude the administrative processing of a subsequent application, including the appointment of a Labour Relations Officer, before a final decision is made on the prior application.

The Board appointed an officer to confer with the parties and gather information for the pre-hearing vote.

The dissenting member would have delayed the appointment until the prior application was resolved.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration alleging that the respondent municipality violated the subcontracting clause of the provincial agreement by contracting electrical work to a non-union contractor.

The respondent argued it was acting as an owner, not an employer in the construction industry, and that it did not 'sublet' the work.

The Board found that the respondent was an employer in the construction industry and bound by the provincial agreement.

However, the Board dismissed the grievance, concluding that the respondent did not 'sublet' the work within the meaning of the agreement because it was not under a prior contractual obligation to perform the work.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer terminated an agency worker for signing a union card, instituted a new check-in procedure during the statutory freeze period, and failed to pay conduct money to summonsed witnesses.

The employer failed to attend the hearing.

The Board found the agency worker was an employee in substance and that her termination violated the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also found the new check-in procedure violated the statutory freeze and ordered the employer to pay the outstanding conduct money to prevent an abuse of process.

The employer was ordered to reinstate the worker, compensate her, and post a notice of its violations.

The applicant and complainants requested that the Board reconsider and vary its previous decision to award damages to all employees affected by the union's breach of section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, rather than only the named complainants.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the complaint was filed only on behalf of the named complainants and that it is not the Board's function to award damages to persons on whose behalf no complaint has been made.

The Board noted that awarding damages to non-parties would be contrary to established remedial principles.

The applicant, an association representing professional and administrative employees of Ontario Hydro, applied for certification as a trade union.

The respondent and objecting employees argued that the applicant was not a 'trade union' under the Labour Relations Act because its membership included persons exercising managerial functions, and that its certification was barred by section 13 due to employer support.

The Board held that the statutory definition of 'trade union' does not mean an organization of employees only, and the presence of managerial members does not deprive an organization of trade union status.

The Board further held that the involvement of allegedly managerial persons in the applicant's affairs and the applicant's use of employer facilities under a long-standing voluntary relationship did not constitute employer support within the meaning of section 13.

The preliminary status questions were resolved in the applicant's favour, and the matter was directed to be relisted for hearing on the remaining issues.

The applicant union filed two applications for certification and requested pre-hearing representation votes.

The Board directed that the votes be taken.

However, because the applicant applied under a name slightly different from the name under which it had previously been found to be a trade union, the Board declined to apply the evidentiary presumption of trade union status under section 105 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board directed that the ballot boxes be sealed and the ballots not counted until the applicant proves its trade union status at a subsequent hearing.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether he had the authority to appoint a conciliation officer at the request of Local 206.

The employer argued that Local 206 had ceased to exist or was no longer a trade union due to a merger with Local 175.

The Board found that Local 206 had not surrendered its charter, continued to exist as an unincorporated association, and retained its status as a trade union under the Labour Relations Act.

Therefore, the Board advised the Minister that he had the authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of objecting employees filed petition cards expressing opposition to the union.

The union challenged the voluntariness of these petition cards, arguing they were tainted by an earlier petition circulated in circumstances that might have created a perception of management involvement.

The majority of the Board found that the employer's behaviour was restrained and there was no evidence of management involvement in the origination or circulation of the petitions.

The Board concluded the petition cards represented a voluntary expression of employee wishes and directed a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, finding the second petition tainted by the flaws of the first.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote for employees at two hospital units.

The Board found that not less than thirty-five percent of the employees in the voting constituencies were members of the applicant.

The Board directed that pre-hearing representation votes be taken, but ordered the ballot boxes sealed until the applicant's status as a trade union is determined.

The Board also noted potential issues regarding the employer's legal entity status and the reliability of the applicant's membership evidence declaration.