Owen V. Gray

The applicant union applied for certification of employees at a new plant.

The employer and the incumbent union argued the application was untimely due to a recently signed collective agreement.

The applicant and employee complainants argued the agreement should be set aside under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act or as a remedy for the incumbent union's breach of its duty of fair representation under section 68.

The Board found that the incumbent union already held bargaining rights for the new plant under a prior city-wide agreement, so section 60 did not apply.

However, the Board held that the incumbent union breached section 68 by completely failing to consult the new plant's employees before concluding a separate, inferior collective agreement for them.

The Board declined to set aside the collective agreement as a remedy, finding it inappropriate to penalize the employer who had not breached the Act, but ordered the union to pay damages to the complainants for the loss of opportunity to be consulted.

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

The respondent employer argued that part-time dependent contractors and students should form a separate unit, and objected to the union receiving copies of the employee lists.

The Board directed a pre-hearing representation vote, defining the voting constituency to include all dependent contractors but ordering the segregation of ballots cast by alleged part-timers and students pending a final determination on the appropriate bargaining unit.

The Board also ordered that the union be provided with copies of the employee lists, as the employer failed to articulate any legal, policy, or factual reason for its objection.

In an application for certification, a group of employees sought to raise allegations of impropriety regarding the union's collection of membership evidence.

The allegations were not filed by the terminal date as required by the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The Board found that the employees failed to comply with the rules for timely filing.

However, because the Board decided to conduct its own inquiry into a separate 'non-pay' allegation involving a membership card, a further hearing was required anyway.

Since entertaining the late allegations would not cause any significant additional delay, the Board exercised its discretion to allow the employees to introduce evidence of the alleged improprieties at the upcoming hearing.

In a union certification application, a pre-hearing representation vote was held.

The applicant union alleged the employer committed an unfair labour practice by holding a captive audience meeting the day before the vote, and requested the ballot box be sealed.

The Board considered whether the applicant's written submissions, which did not expressly request a hearing, constituted a statement of desire for a hearing under Rule 70.

The Board concluded that a request for a hearing could be implied from the filing of the unfair labour practice complaint.

The Board directed that the matter be listed for a hearing to determine whether the ballots should be counted.

The applicant union filed an application for certification after having previously filed and withdrawn two similar applications before the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the Canada Labour Relations Board.

The respondent employer argued that the Board should decline to entertain the new application under section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act, alleging a possibility of manipulation regarding membership evidence.

The Board found no abuse of process, noting that the membership evidence relied upon was obtained before any possibility of manipulation arose.

The Board declined to refuse to entertain the application and, based on the parties' agreement and the membership evidence, granted the certification.

The trade union (Local 175) requested the appointment of a conciliation officer.

The employer objected, arguing Local 175 did not hold bargaining rights for the employees.

Local 175 claimed it was the successor to Local 206, which had been certified, due to a merger.

The Minister referred the question of his authority to appoint a conciliation officer to the Board under s. 107 of the Labour Relations Act.

Local 175 conceded that the alleged merger occurred before Local 206 was certified, meaning the condition precedent for a successor declaration under s. 62(1) was not met.

The Board held that its powers under s. 107(2) are no broader than under s. 62(1).

Consequently, the Board could not declare Local 175 the successor trade union and advised the Minister that he lacked authority to appoint a conciliation officer at Local 175's request.

The applicant union sought certification to displace the incumbent union as the exclusive bargaining agent for the respondent's employees.

Following a successful pre-hearing representation vote in favour of the applicant, the sole issue was the precise description of the bargaining unit.

The respondent argued for the inclusion of the phrase 'described in the wage schedule of the agreement' from the incumbent's collective agreement.

The Board declined to include the phrase, finding it could create uncertainty and potentially restrict the scope of the bargaining unit inappropriately.

A certificate was issued to the applicant for the broader unit description.

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

The Board directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be conducted among the employees in the voting constituency, which matched the incumbent union's existing bargaining unit.

The Board also directed that the applicant and incumbent unions be provided with copies of the voters list, over the respondent employer's objection.

The applicant parent union applied under section 82(2) of the Labour Relations Act for the Board's consent to extend its supervision and control over the respondent local for an additional year.

The supervision was initially requested by the local's membership due to severe internal frictions that impaired its functioning.

The Board found that the local could not function if supervision ended prematurely and noted the absence of opposition to the application.

The Board granted the application, leaving any early termination of supervision to be determined under the union's constitution.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 107 of the Labour Relations Act regarding whether the trade union held bargaining rights for the employer's carpenters in all sectors other than the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector in Board Area 3, and whether the union's request for a conciliation officer was proper.

The employer argued that the union never had non-ICI bargaining rights, or alternatively, had abandoned them.

The Board found that the original 1965 collective agreement granted the union bargaining rights for all sectors, and that the union had not abandoned these rights despite a period of inactivity, as the employer had not performed non-ICI work in the area during that time.

The Board concluded that the union held the bargaining rights and the Minister had the authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

During an application for certification, the objectors argued that the applicant union's charges of employer misconduct and its request for certification without a vote under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act were not filed promptly as required by Rule 72.

The Board held that the union's obligation to file particulars regarding the voluntariness of employee petitions arose only when it was officially notified of the petitions by the Board, and the union acted promptly thereafter.

The Board also declined to strike the section 8 claim, noting that its timing did not cause any adjournment, prejudice, or delay.

The union applied for certification to represent employees of the Grand River Conservation Authority.

The outstanding issues were whether 15 'Superintendents' exercised managerial functions under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, and whether the bargaining unit description should specifically exclude 'Superintendents' or use the generic term 'managers'.

The Board found that the 13 Area Superintendents exercised managerial functions due to their effective control over seasonal employees, while the Head Office Superintendent and Small Dams Superintendent did not.

The Board concluded that the generic term 'managers' should be used in the bargaining unit description rather than the specific job title.

The applicant union requested a pre-hearing representation vote in its application for certification.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to conduct a vote until it determined whether the respondent or the hospital was the true employer of the dietary staff.

The Board held that it is not required to resolve the identity of the employer before conducting a pre-hearing vote, as doing so would frustrate the purpose of the expedited vote procedure.

The Board directed that a vote be held among the agreed-upon voting constituency, with the ballot box to be sealed pending the resolution of the employer identity issue.

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation applied for certification to represent a unit of psychologists, social workers, and other professionals employed by the Board of Education for the City of York, displacing the incumbent union.

The incumbent argued the applicant's constitution did not permit these employees into membership.

The Board found the applicant had an established practice of admitting such persons, satisfying the Labour Relations Act.

As the applicant demonstrated sufficient membership support, the Board ordered a representation vote between the applicant and the incumbent union.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of speech pathologists, psychologists, psychometrists, and social worker/attendance counsellors employed by the respondent school board.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description.

The Board considered whether a unit defined by specific job classifications was appropriate, noting its general aversion to fragmentation.

However, given the history of separate representation for such support personnel in the school board sector and the agreement of the parties, the Board found the proposed unit appropriate.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union sought a direction under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act for access to the respondent's remote mining site to organize employees.

The parties agreed on most terms of access, but the employer sought to restrict access to 30 days and exclude the union from the bunkhouses.

The Board granted access to the bunkhouses, finding that the mere possibility of violence was not a compelling reason to restrict access to the employees' primary residence on the property.

The Board also granted the access order for a term of one year, as agreed to by the applicant, finding no compelling employer interest to limit it to 30 days.

In an application for termination of bargaining rights, a representation vote was held.

Two issues arose regarding the vote: the eligibility of a retired employee who was using up vacation credits, and whether the applicant, who missed the vote due to a serious car accident, should be allowed to cast a late ballot.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the retired employee was ineligible to vote because she was not performing work on the relevant dates.

The Board also declined to afford the applicant another opportunity to vote, emphasizing the need for certainty and expedition in representation matters.

The Board directed that the remaining ballots be counted.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of operating engineers employed by the respondent in the construction industry.

The sole issue was whether any employees were performing bargaining unit work on the application date.

Applying the criteria from Seegmiller and Gilvesey, the Board rejected the use of a 'representative period' and focused on the work performed on the application date.

The Board found that two employees who operated worker and material hoists spent a majority of their time performing bargaining unit work on that date, even when participating in loading and unloading.

The Board directed the issuance of certificates for the ICI sector and the relevant geographic area.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to displace the incumbent union representing the respondent's woods operations employees.

Following a pre-hearing representation vote where more than fifty percent of ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no party requesting a hearing, the Ontario Labour Relations Board disposed of the application on the materials.

The Board adopted the voting constituency as the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant union sought a direction under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act for access to the respondent employer's remote work camp to organize employees.

The employer conceded the Board's jurisdiction to grant access but disputed the terms, specifically opposing access to employee bunk houses.

The Board held that a section 11 direction puts union representatives in the same position as resident employees regarding communication opportunities, and that employees retain the right to deny access to their private rooms.

The Board granted the access direction on terms that included access to the bunk houses, subject to reasonable limitations on the number of representatives, hours of access, and duration of the order.