Owen V. Gray

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

The parties disputed whether 'supply instructors'—unqualified persons employed on an emergency basis to substitute for regular teachers—should be included in the same bargaining unit as qualified occasional teachers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that occasional teachers and supply instructors have different communities of interest due to statutory distinctions and employment aspirations.

The Board concluded that the appropriate bargaining unit should consist solely of occasional teachers, consistent with its past practice, and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant sought a declaration terminating the respondent union's bargaining rights.

Although 15 of 30 employees initially signed a petition against the union, two subsequently signed a counterpetition reaffirming their support before the assessment date.

The Board held that it must consider the last voluntary signification of wishes as of the assessment date.

Consequently, the applicant failed to demonstrate that at least 45 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit no longer wished to be represented by the union.

The application was dismissed, with one Board Member dissenting.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to arbitration, alleging the respondent breached the provincial collective agreement by performing drywall and acoustic work in the ICI sector without obtaining workers from the union's hiring hall.

The respondent, who was previously declared a single employer bound by the agreement, sought an adjournment which the Board denied.

The Board found the respondent breached the agreement and, relying on the union's uncontradicted evidence estimating labour costs at one-half of the contract price, awarded $45,410.00 in damages for lost earnings to unemployed union members.

Following a finding that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to process the complainants' grievances regarding layoff selection, the Board convened a hearing to determine the appropriate remedy.

The Board decided to interpret the collective agreement itself rather than referring the matter to arbitration, finding that the union's internal conflict made arbitration inappropriate.

The Board concluded that the collective agreement required layoffs to be based on departmental seniority rather than mill seniority.

The Board awarded compensation to the complainants for lost wages during specific layoff periods, plus interest, but denied their request for costs.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote for a bargaining unit of occasional teachers.

The respondent school board requested that the vote be conducted by mail-in ballot, citing the large geographic area and travel distances for occasional teachers.

The Board denied the request for a mail-in ballot, applying its policy that representation votes for occasional teachers should generally be conducted at polling stations, and referred the logistics of the vote to the Registrar.

The complainant and several other employees were dismissed from their employment for refusing to become members of the union, as required by a union shop clause in the collective agreement.

The complainant alleged that the union and employer violated the Labour Relations Act by enforcing the clause and failing to provide sufficient particulars of the membership requirements.

The complainant also argued that compulsory union membership violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employees had reasonable notice and opportunity to join the union but simply refused to do so.

The Board also held that the Charter does not apply to private sector collective agreements.

The applicant union filed three applications for certification requesting a pre-hearing representation vote for employees of three formerly separate companies that had amalgamated into Plastics CMP Limited.

The Board considered the effect of the amalgamation on the existing bargaining rights held by the intervener union.

To maximize the utility of the vote results pending a final determination of the appropriate bargaining unit, the Board established four separate voting constituencies and directed that pre-hearing representation votes be taken.

In a certification application, the employer requested reconsideration of a Board direction requiring it to provide copies of employee lists to the applicant union prior to the next hearing date.

The employer argued that Board practice required such lists to be examined only in the presence of a Labour Relations Officer to prevent abuse.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, holding that natural justice requires the union to have access to the information, and that providing the lists in advance promotes efficiency and narrows issues without necessarily requiring an officer's presence.

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

A second union subsequently applied for certification for the same bargaining unit but initially did not request a pre-hearing vote.

The Board permitted the second union to amend its application to request a pre-hearing vote and exercised its discretion under section 103(3) of the Labour Relations Act to treat the subsequent application as having been made on the date of the original application.

The Board consolidated the applications and directed a pre-hearing representation vote with a three-way ballot.

The applicant trade unions sought to add Conrad Black and Hollinger Inc. as respondents to related employer and unfair labour practice applications involving Willett Foods Limited and various franchisees.

A previous panel of the Board had already dismissed a similar request by one of the unions to add Black and a predecessor corporation.

The Board applied principles analogous to res judicata and issue estoppel, finding that the new allegations did not materially alter the basis of the claims.

The Board reaffirmed that section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act is not intended merely to provide access to 'deep pockets' absent allegations of a transfer of work or other attempts to frustrate collective bargaining.

The request to add the respondents was denied, and the complaints against them were dismissed.

In a complex proceeding involving nearly two hundred parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued procedural directions regarding the service of documents and the addition of respondents.

The Board ruled that service on a party's agent or counsel would be sufficient, and established a procedure for amending applications to add respondents by analogy to the Board's Rules of Procedure, requiring the applicant to provide amended filings and notice to all parties.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of full-time Heritage Language Instructors employed by the respondent school board.

The Board determined that a unit limited to Heritage Language Instructors was not appropriate, finding that all instructors employed by the board shared a community of interest and should be included in a single unit.

The Board also considered whether to exclude part-time instructors from the unit.

Departing from its traditional 24-hour rule for part-time employees, the Board concluded that instructors working 10 hours or less per week should be excluded from the bargaining unit.

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

The parties disagreed on the appropriate bargaining unit description, specifically regarding the inclusion of unqualified occasional teachers and part-time permanent teachers who also teach occasionally.

The Board directed a pre-hearing representation vote using the applicant's proposed voting constituency, ordering that ballots cast by persons alleged to be party to a permanent or probationary teaching contract be segregated and the ballot box sealed pending further determination of the appropriate bargaining unit.

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

The Board considered whether it could direct a vote despite the applicant's failure to file a new Form 9 Declaration for membership evidence transferred from a previous file.

The Board held that the absence of a proper Form 9 Declaration does not prevent the taking of a pre-hearing vote, but directed that the ballot box be sealed until a proper declaration is filed.

The Board also declined the applicant's request to conduct the vote by mail, noting the administrative costs and frailties of mailed ballots, and referred the method of voting to the Registrar.

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

The Board found that not less than thirty-five per cent of the employees in the voting constituency were members of the applicant.

The Board directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be taken among occasional teachers employed by the respondent.

The applicant requested that the vote be conducted by mail, but the Board declined to direct a mail vote, referring the method of voting to the Registrar in accordance with its recent policy shift regarding occasional teacher votes.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent occasional teachers employed by the respondent school board.

The Board found that the applicant was a trade union and that the proposed bargaining unit of occasional teachers was appropriate.

The Board determined that occasional teachers were not covered by existing collective agreements with other unions, as they had been historically overlooked and fell under the Labour Relations Act by default.

Finding that more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the unit were members of the applicant, the Board granted the certificate.

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

The respondent employer and the applicant agreed on the voting constituency.

However, the applicant filed a defective Form 9 declaration concerning membership documents.

The Board held that under subsection 9(2) of the Labour Relations Act, the Board only needs to determine if there is an appearance of membership support based on union and employer records, which combination application cards satisfy.

The Board directed the pre-hearing representation vote but ordered the ballot box sealed until a proper Form 9 declaration is filed.

The complainant alleged that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by withdrawing her transfer grievance from arbitration.

The union withdrew the grievance after assuming the complainant had rejected a settlement offer, based on information from the employer that she had contacted the university president.

The Board found the union acted arbitrarily by failing to ascertain the complainant's actual decision regarding the settlement before withdrawing the grievance.

The Board ordered the arbitration reinstated and directed the union to retain jointly selected counsel to represent the complainant.

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

The parties jointly requested that the two respondent entities be treated as one employer under subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be conducted and ordered that notice of the joint application be given to affected employees, allowing them an opportunity to make representations before the Board grants the single-employer declaration.

The complainant, a union member and experienced pipeline worker, alleged that the union violated section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to honour contractors' requests to name-hire him and by restricting name-hire opportunities to favour dispatch from the out-of-work list.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found no evidence that the union refused any valid name-hire requests for the complainant.

Furthermore, the Board held that the union's policy of limiting name-hires to those requested at the pre-job conference and encouraging employers to use the out-of-work list was a reasonable balancing of competing member interests.

The complaint was dismissed as the union's actions were not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.