Owen V. Gray

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation applied for certification to represent occasional teachers employed by three school boards.

The parties initially agreed on a bargaining unit description that excluded employees in existing bargaining units.

The Board revised the exclusionary language to clarify that the unit excludes persons who, when employed as substitutes, are 'teachers' under the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, reflecting the mutual exclusivity of the statutory regimes.

In the North York application, an employee's request to set aside the representation vote due to low turnout and short notice was dismissed, as notice was adequate and low turnout alone does not invalidate a vote.

In the Wellington application, the Board declined to dismiss the application based on a previously withdrawn application and directed the counting of ballots.

Certificates were issued for the Sault Ste.

Marie and North York units.

In an application for certification, the parties disputed whether 'Area Superintendents' exercised managerial functions under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

A labour relations officer was appointed to inquire into the duties of specific individuals.

The applicant union requested a hearing to argue that the officer should also hear evidence regarding the duties of 'Interpreters' (who were in the bargaining unit) for comparative purposes.

The Board deferred the request, ruling that the scope of the officer's inquiry would not be enlarged or made the subject of a hearing until the officer's report on the initially examined individuals was completed and circulated.

The applicant union filed ten applications for certification concerning truck and transport drivers employed by various respondents, along with a related employer application under subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The union requested pre-hearing representation votes.

Several respondents objected to the votes, arguing that the appropriate bargaining unit and employer identity could not be determined until the related employer application was resolved.

The Board directed that pre-hearing representation votes be conducted in ten separate voting constituencies, with ballots segregated where disputes existed regarding the inclusion of certain individuals or locations.

The Board held that the purpose of the pre-hearing vote procedure is to test employee wishes promptly, and that issues regarding the utility or effect of the votes would be determined at a subsequent hearing.

The applicant union applied for certification and had to establish its status as a 'trade union' under the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer and objecting employees argued that the applicant was not a trade union because its constitution was not properly ratified by its members.

The Board found that the applicant, as a local chartered by the Canadian Labour Congress, was formed pursuant to an existing constitution, and the founding members agreed to be bound by it upon application for the charter.

The Board concluded the applicant is a trade union and directed a representation vote.

The applicant trade union applied under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

The Board found that the employer had engaged in unfair labour practices during the organizing campaign, which chilled employee support.

During bargaining, the employer refused to provide the union with the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and wage rates of bargaining unit employees, and maintained uncompromising positions without reasonable justification.

The Board concluded that the collective bargaining process had been unsuccessful due to the employer's refusal to recognize the union's bargaining authority and its failure to make reasonable efforts to conclude an agreement.

The Board directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

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

The Board declined to adopt the bargaining unit description agreed upon by the applicant and respondent, finding it problematic and lacking the incumbent's agreement.

Instead, the Board defined the voting constituency based on the incumbent's existing collective agreement, excluding employees of contractors.

Finding that not less than 35 per cent of the employees in the voting constituency were members of the applicant, the Board directed a pre-hearing representation vote.

The applicant union grieved that the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement by employing a member of another local on a project within the applicant's geographic jurisdiction without a referral slip.

The employer argued that the union's constitution and past practice estopped the union from enforcing the strict terms of the collective agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union's constitution did not confer rights on the employer and that past practice did not amount to a representation giving rise to an estoppel.

The Board held that the employer breached the collective agreement and directed compensation.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The Board raised the issue of whether section 13 of the Labour Relations Act prohibited certification because the applicant's local constitution restricted membership to citizens of the United States or Canada.

The Board found that while the local constitution contained a citizenship requirement, the parent union's constitution prohibited discrimination on the basis of national origin and expressly prevailed over inconsistent local provisions.

Therefore, the applicant was not governed by a requirement restricting membership to citizens and was not prohibited from certification under section 13.

The matter was relisted to determine the appropriate bargaining unit.

The applicant trade union requested copies of the mailing lists supplied by the respondent school boards to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for the purpose of a pre-hearing representation vote.

The Registrar referred the request to the Board.

The Board held that, in occasional teacher certification applications, the general rule is that all interested parties have access to mailing lists supplied to the Board by respondents.

Any request to deny such access must be raised at the meeting with the labour relations officer.

Since no such request was made, the Board directed the Registrar to supply the applicant with the requested mailing lists.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of occasional teachers employed by the respondent school board.

The Board raised concerns about the adequacy of notice to employees and the applicant amended its application to request a pre-hearing representation vote.

The Board directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be taken, defined the voting constituency, and ordered the respondent to provide the applicant with the names and addresses of the employees on the voters' list.

The Board also ordered the ballot box sealed pending a future hearing on the respondent's objection that the application should not be entertained due to a recently withdrawn prior application.

The applicant union applied for certification and initially requested a pre-hearing representation vote along with a pre-vote hearing to determine the appropriate bargaining unit.

The Board noted that a vote conducted after a hearing on substantive issues would not be a pre-hearing representation vote under section 9 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant subsequently abandoned its request for a pre-vote hearing.

The Board revoked its direction for a hearing and directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be conducted among occasional teachers in the respondent's secondary panel.

The ballot box will be sealed pending the determination of the bargaining unit dispute.

The complainant, who could not read or write English, was transferred from his maintenance job to a production job after scoring lower than a junior employee on a written test.

He filed grievances challenging the employer's use of a written test to determine merit and ability.

The union decided not to pursue the grievances to arbitration, relying on the complainant's prior agreement to take the test and its interpretation of the collective agreement.

The complainant alleged the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding no evidence of bad faith, discrimination, or arbitrary conduct in the union's decision-making process.

The applicant trade union sought certification for a unit of employees of the respondent, a company that prepares customers' materials for mailing via Canada Post.

The respondent argued that its labour relations fell under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867, as its operations were an integral part of the postal service.

The Board rejected this argument, finding that the respondent acted as a mail service broker and its operations were not an essential or integral part of Canada Post's core federal undertaking.

Having asserted provincial jurisdiction, the Board found the proposed bargaining unit appropriate and, based on the membership evidence, issued a certificate to the applicant.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent occasional teachers employed by the respondent school board and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The Board directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be taken, as it appeared that not less than thirty-five percent of the employees in the voting constituency were members of the applicant.

The Board also addressed the test for determining voter eligibility for occasional teachers and deferred the issue of whether this application was a subsequent application under subsection 103(3) of the Labour Relations Act to the panel dealing with an earlier application.

The applicant sought to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act, challenging a voluntary recognition agreement.

The applicant attempted to rely on a Statement of Desire (petition) that had been filed during a previous, withdrawn certification application.

The Board held that a prior settlement agreement, which resolved the certification application and implicitly treated the petition as involuntary, precluded the applicant from relying on the petition in the current proceedings.

As the petition was deemed irrelevant and the union had majority membership support at the time of recognition, the application was dismissed.

The union applied for certification and won a pre-hearing representation vote by a margin of one ballot.

The employer filed an untimely objection, arguing the vote should be set aside because a union supporter incorrectly told an eligible employee he could not vote, and that employee did not vote.

The Board dismissed the objection, finding the employer failed to meet the reasonable diligence test for extending the time limit.

The Board further noted that even if timely, the objection would fail because the employee had adequate official notice of his right to vote and the means to clarify his eligibility.

A certificate was issued to the union.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent purchaser of a tavern business committed an unfair labour practice by refusing to employ former employees because of their union membership.

The respondent declared bankruptcy and did not attend the hearing.

The Board found that because the sale occurred after the collective agreement expired, the respondent was not bound to continue the employment of the predecessor's employees.

Since the grievors did not formally apply for employment until months later, and there was no evidence of available positions or compensable loss at that time, the Board dismissed the complaint.

The applicant union applied for certification of employees at the respondent's home for the aged.

The parties agreed on two appropriate bargaining units (full-time and part-time/students) but disputed the inclusion of persons employed under a governmental training program.

The respondent argued these subsidized employees lacked a community of interest with other employees.

The Board found that subsidized employees perform similar work to unsubsidized employees and that their interests are best addressed by including them in the bargaining units.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining units and directed that certificates issue to the applicant.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer failed to apply a 'time and one-seventh' shift differential when calculating pension, welfare, and union dues contributions for second-shift workers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the shift differential applied to all 'per hour paid' benefits, not just base wages.

Although the Board found it had jurisdiction to remedy breaches under prior expired agreements, it limited the retroactive remedy to the current and most recently expired collective agreements.

The Board reasoned that the union's failure to verify the calculations or raise the issue for over eight years demonstrated an indifference that made full retroactive recovery inequitable.

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

The application involved complex issues regarding the composition of the bargaining unit, including the status of professional engineers and managerial exclusions.

Furthermore, the applicant and respondent had a long-standing relationship with existing agreements, raising questions about whether the applicant already held bargaining rights or was disqualified due to employer support.

The Board doubted that a pre-hearing vote would meaningfully contribute to determining the applicant's representational rights and scheduled a hearing for the applicant to show cause why its request for a vote should not be refused.