Owen V. Gray

The complainant was discharged by her employer for alleged misappropriation of company property after automobile parts were found in her car.

The union filed a grievance but withdrew it at the third step without ever asking the complainant to explain her possession of the items found inside the passenger compartment, which had become the employer's primary focus.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union acted arbitrarily in violation of section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to investigate the complainant's side of the story regarding those items.

The Board ordered the grievance reinstated and submitted to arbitration, with the union to bear the cost of independent counsel for the complainant and any compensation referable to the period of delay caused by its breach.

The applicant union applied for certification.

During the proceedings, it was revealed that two major collectors of membership cards had deliberately misled the union president regarding the direct payment of the $1.00 initiation fee by certain employees.

The union president had signed the Form 9 declaration without noting these exceptions.

The Board found that the reports from these two collectors, who gathered over 80% of the cards, were unreliable.

Consequently, the Board could not be satisfied that the union had the requisite 45% membership support for a representation vote or 55% for outright certification.

The application was dismissed without a bar.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that Ontario Hydro violated the collective agreement by contracting with 3-L Filters Limited for the supply of equipment. 3-L Filters Limited sought standing to intervene in the arbitration proceedings, arguing that its commercial interests and proprietary rights would be directly affected if the union succeeded.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application for standing, holding that a third party not bound by the collective agreement is not entitled to intervene as of right, and that the Board's discretion to permit intervention should only be exercised where special labour relations circumstances exist, which were not present in this case.

The complainant trade union alleged that the employer committed unfair labour practices during collective bargaining by refusing to disclose a salary survey, refusing to provide particulars of existing salaries and proposed adjustments, communicating directly with employees to disparage the union, and unilaterally implementing salary adjustments during the statutory freeze period.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer violated sections 15, 64, 67, and 79 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the employer to cease and desist, bargain in good faith, produce the salary survey, compensate the union and employees for losses, and post a notice of its violations.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote for a unit of part-time academic staff, professional counsellors, and professional librarians at the University of Ottawa.

The Board directed that a representation vote be conducted, defining the voting constituency and ordering that ballots of certain disputed categories of employees be segregated pending a final determination of the appropriate bargaining unit.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union applied for a declaration that the Ministry of Natural Resources' contract with two individuals to operate Fitzroy Provincial Park constituted a transfer of an undertaking under the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act.

The Board found that the contractors were operating the park for their own account, assuming financial risks, and using the physical assets and similar jobs as formerly performed by Crown employees.

The Board concluded that the transaction was analogous to a lease or franchise and declared it a transfer of an undertaking from the Crown to an employer.

The complainants, members of the respondent trade union, alleged that the union violated section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by acting arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith in its operation of the hiring hall.

Specifically, they complained about five instances where members were referred to work out of order from the out-of-work list.

The Board found that the business manager's policy of referring the best qualified members to act as stewards, regardless of their position on the list, had a rational basis and was not applied improperly.

Other out-of-order referrals were justified by a grievance settlement and an employer's specific request for a short-term emergency job.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of part-time employees and students at the respondent hospital.

The parties agreed on the unit description except for the inclusion of students employed during the school vacation period.

The respondent argued that students lacked a community of interest or, alternatively, that a representation vote should be deferred until the summer when students were employed.

The Board declined to defer the vote based on the build-up principle and granted interim certification for the agreed-upon unit, excluding students pending a final determination of the bargaining unit composition.

The Board issued procedural directions for the exchange of pleadings and documents to resolve the outstanding issue.

The applicant union requested leave to withdraw its application for certification before a pre-hearing representation vote was directed.

The respondent hospital opposed the withdrawal and requested that the Board impose a bar on future applications under section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act, arguing the union was attempting to avoid an unfavourable vote.

The Board dismissed the application but declined to impose a bar or issue a warning, noting that a vote had not yet been directed and it would be inappropriate to adjudicate the likelihood of a vote merely to determine the burden of proof for a hypothetical future application.

In an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights, a representation vote resulted in a tie.

One employee requested that the vote be set aside, claiming she had misread the ballot and mistakenly voted in favour of the union when she intended to vote against it.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the request, holding that it would not inquire into the subjective intent of a voter or look behind an unambiguously marked ballot, as doing so would undermine the secrecy and integrity of the voting process.

In an application for certification, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined the eligibility of three individuals to vote in a representation vote for an office employees bargaining unit.

The Board ruled that Chantelle MacAllister's ballot would be counted because the applicant abandoned its challenge.

Lisette Larocque's ballot would be counted because the respondent could not unilaterally withdraw from an earlier agreement that she was an employee in the unit.

Jean Lamoureux's ballot would not be counted because the respondent had previously agreed he was in a different, mutually exclusive bargaining unit on the eligibility date.

The applicant union requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board state a case to the Divisional Court for contempt under section 13 of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act.

The respondents had previously refused to post Board notices regarding certification and unfair labour practice applications, and had obstructed a Labour Relations Officer attempting to post them.

The Board determined that it could state a case without holding a hearing, as the Divisional Court acts as the trial court for the contempt proceeding.

The Board consented to state the case, including the facts of the respondents' non-compliance and the officer's reports of obstruction.

The applicant union filed a complaint alleging that the respondent employer effected an unlawful lock-out by closing its restaurant shortly after a certification application was filed and representation vote arrangements were made.

The Board found that while the closure involved a withholding of work opportunities, the union failed to prove the specific subjective intent required to constitute a lock-out—namely, the intention to preserve the employment relationship on different terms or to compel employees to refrain from exercising statutory rights.

As the necessary intent was not established, the complaint was dismissed.

The complainant filed a reprisal complaint under the Environmental Protection Act, alleging he was discharged for refusing to perform work he believed was illegal.

At the hearing, the complainant requested an adjournment pending the outcome of parallel court proceedings and due to fears of police harassment.

The Board denied the adjournment, noting its mandate to deal with labour relations matters expeditiously.

The complainant subsequently requested to withdraw his complaint, which the Board permitted, terminating the inquiry.

The union applied for certification and filed unfair labour practice complaints.

The employer refused to post the required Board notices to employees.

Board officers, accompanied by a sheriff's officer, forcibly entered the employer's premises to post the notices.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing that the Board lacked jurisdiction to use force and that its actions created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Board dismissed the objections, holding that its statutory power to enter premises to post notices implicitly includes the authority to use reasonable force.

The Board found that a reasonable person would view the actions as fulfilling the Board's statutory duties, not as allying with the union.

The applicant union sought certification for the respondent's office support staff.

A representation vote was held based on an agreed-upon voters' list, and all ballots were cast in favour of the applicant.

After the vote, the respondent sought to challenge the eligibility of one of the voters, claiming she should be excluded as a confidential employee.

The Board held that the respondent could not resile from its earlier agreement on the voters' list and that any challenge to voter eligibility had to be raised in a timely fashion at the time of the vote.

The Board certified the applicant.

The applicants, registered nurses at a nursing home, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union had been certified and a conciliation officer was appointed, but no collective agreement had been reached.

The Board held that under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, once a conciliation officer is appointed, an application for termination cannot be brought until after the interest arbitration process results in a collective agreement, and then only during the open period.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

During an ongoing hearing regarding a complaint that the respondent trade union violated section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, the complainant requested that the Board reconsider its ruling excluding a letter written by a third party.

The complainant sought to introduce the letter as evidence of the truth of its contents without calling the author as a witness.

The Board declined to reconsider its ruling, holding that fairness to the respondent required that testimony on a central and controversial issue be received directly, under oath, and subject to cross-examination.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description but disputed whether five individuals exercised managerial functions and should be excluded under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The parties requested an interim certificate and an adjournment to resolve the dispute during collective bargaining.

The Board determined that it had jurisdiction to issue a final certificate, rather than an interim one, because the dispute over the five individuals' status would not affect the union's right to certification or the description of the bargaining unit.

A final certificate was issued.

During a hearing for an unfair labour practice complaint, the complainant union requested an order directing the respondent employer to produce a salary survey and other documents related to unilateral salary adjustments.

The employer argued the survey was irrelevant and its production would grant the ultimate remedy sought in the complaint.

The Board held it had jurisdiction to order production of documents relevant to the issues, finding the survey's existence and content relevant to the employer's motivation.

The Board ordered production of the survey and documents the employer intended to rely on, noting that the union was bound by an implied undertaking not to use the documents for collateral purposes such as collective bargaining.