Owen V. Gray

The complainants, skilled tradesmen, alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act and engaged in intimidation under section 70 by refusing to process their grievances regarding the application of departmental versus mill seniority during layoffs.

The Board dismissed the section 70 complaint, finding no intimidation.

However, the Board found that the union president acted arbitrarily and in bad faith by refusing to process the grievances due to personal animosity and by withholding relevant information from the membership.

The Board held that the union breached section 68 and directed the parties to provide further submissions on the appropriate remedy, noting that referring the matter to arbitration might not be appropriate given the union's conflict of interest.

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

The intervener claimed to be the successor to the incumbent trade union and requested to be on the ballot.

The applicant disputed the successorship, alleging an invalid merger, employer support, and intimidation.

The Board held that the successorship issue must be resolved before a pre-hearing vote could be conducted.

The Board directed that the intervener's claim be treated as an application for a successor status declaration and scheduled a hearing to determine both the successorship issue and whether a pre-hearing vote should be directed in light of the applicant's allegations.

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union applied for certification for employees at various Swiss Chalet restaurants.

The respondents and interveners argued the applications were untimely due to an existing collective agreement between the Swiss Chalet Employers' Association (SCEA) and the Canadian Union of Restaurant and Related Employees (CURRE).

Local 88 intervened, claiming to be the successor to CURRE following a merger.

The Board found that the attempted merger between CURRE and Local 88 was legally ineffective due to non-compliance with CURRE's constitutional notice requirements.

The Board also determined that the SCEA was a valid employers' organization and its agreement with CURRE was a collective agreement.

However, franchisee respondents who applied for SCEA membership after its formation were not automatically bound by the agreement.

The Board further held that the franchising of locations by Foodcorp constituted a sale of a business under section 63 of the Act.

The applicant union applied for certification to displace an incumbent union.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing certification long after the terminal date, requesting an extension due to alleged lack of information and delay in the proceedings.

The Board refused to extend the terminal date, emphasizing the need for a fixed point in time to ascertain employee wishes and noting that mere passage of time or change of heart does not justify an extension.

Furthermore, because the incumbent union had abandoned its bargaining rights, the Board declined to order a representation vote and granted outright certification based on the applicant's membership evidence.

The applicant union applied for certification.

During the hearing, it was revealed that the union's business agent had signed the receipt portion of two membership cards despite not being the actual collector of the initiation fees, and subsequently signed a Form 9 Declaration without noting any exceptions.

The Board found that the union representative had knowingly made a false representation to the Board.

Given the strict standards for membership evidence and the necessity of complete disclosure on Form 9, the Board declined to give any weight to the membership evidence and dismissed the application.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer argued that an existing collective agreement with the Center Tool Employees Organization barred the application, or alternatively, that a representation vote should be held.

The Board found that the Center Tool Employees Organization lacked a formal constitution, membership requirements, and mutual obligations among employees, and therefore was not a 'trade union' within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act.

As the applicant had the support of approximately two-thirds of the bargaining unit, the Board granted certification without directing a representation vote.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The respondent employers and the union agreed to a related employer declaration.

A group of employees filed a statement of desire after the terminal date, requesting an extension because the employer's bookkeeper had mistakenly altered the terminal date on the posted Board notice.

The Board refused to extend the terminal date, finding that the employees had adequate notice of the original date before the unauthorized alteration was made.

As the union had membership support from more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit on the terminal date, the Board granted certification.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a unit of employees at the respondent's restaurant.

The incumbent union did not oppose the application and abandoned its bargaining rights.

An intervener union initially alleged employer support for the applicant but later withdrew its intervention and abandoned its opposition following a settlement.

The Board found that the applicant had established sufficient membership support and, given the withdrawal of the intervener and the lack of compelling evidence of employer support, exercised its discretion under section 7(2) of the Labour Relations Act to certify the applicant without a representation vote.

The applicant employee applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union challenged the voluntariness of the decertification petition, alleging employer interference because the applicant had a social relationship with the plant manager.

The Board found no evidence that management promoted the petition or that employees would perceive management involvement.

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

One Board member dissented, finding the social relationship tainted the petition.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his authority to appoint a single arbitrator under section 45 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer argued the union's request was untimely and therefore the Minister lacked authority to appoint.

The Board held that under section 45(4), the Minister has a mandatory obligation to appoint an arbitrator upon receiving a request, and that the appointed arbitrator has exclusive jurisdiction to determine any questions regarding the timeliness of the request.

The applicant union sought certification for curatorial staff and professional librarians.

The respondent museum argued that 18 curatorial department heads should be excluded as they exercised managerial functions under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the department heads functioned more like lead hands or university department heads in a collegial model, lacking independent discretion over hiring, firing, or discipline.

The Board concluded they did not exercise managerial functions and included them in the bargaining unit, granting a final certificate.

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

The respondent employer challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing its labour relations fell under federal jurisdiction because it employed aircraft in its business.

The respondent also requested a hearing prior to the vote to address jurisdiction, the bargaining unit scope, and vote arrangements for employees on overseas assignments.

The Board dismissed the request for a pre-vote hearing, noting that the purpose of a pre-hearing vote is expedition and that jurisdictional issues are properly addressed at a hearing after the vote is conducted.

The Board directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be taken and the ballot box sealed pending further order.

The complainant was discharged by his employer for allegedly stealing company property.

He did not request the union to file a grievance at the time of his dismissal, despite the union president contacting him and advising him of the time limits.

Months later, the complainant requested a grievance form, which the union refused to provide because the time limits had expired.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith, as the complainant had initially declined union assistance and offered no explanation for his extreme delay in seeking to file a grievance.

The applicant union filed multiple certification applications for employees at various Swiss Chalet restaurants.

The respondent employers and intervener unions argued the applications were untimely due to existing collective agreements.

The applicant alleged that the employer had previously provided covert support to the intervener union by hiring undercover operatives to assist in its organizing campaign, thereby invalidating the existing collective agreements under sections 13 and 48 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the employer did violate section 64 by providing covert support, but because the intervener union was unaware of this support, its independence was not compromised.

Consequently, the existing collective agreements remained valid, and most of the certification applications were dismissed as untimely.

The Communications Workers of Canada applied for certification to represent employees of CTG Telecommunications Systems, an interconnect company that sells, installs, and maintains telephone systems.

The respondent challenged the Ontario Labour Relations Board's jurisdiction, arguing its operations were an integral part of the Bell Canada network and thus fell under federal jurisdiction.

The Board held that the respondent's operations were not vital, essential, or integral to the core federal undertaking of Bell Canada, and therefore fell within provincial jurisdiction.

The Board also determined the composition of the appropriate bargaining unit and ordered a representation vote.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed an unfair labour practice by discharging a union activist for picket line misconduct during a lawful strike.

The grievor had handed a bullet to a non-striking employee and spat in his face.

The union argued the discharge was disproportionate and motivated by anti-union animus.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer met its burden under section 89(5) of the Labour Relations Act to prove the discharge was not tainted by anti-union motive.

The Board concluded the employer's response, whether just or not, was genuinely based on the severe nature of the picket line incident rather than the grievor's union activities.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees at a Swiss Chalet restaurant operated by the respondent.

The incumbent trade union, which previously held bargaining rights, advised the Board that it no longer wished to assert those rights and did not oppose the applicant's certification.

The Board considered whether its usual practice of ordering a representation vote in displacement applications should apply when the incumbent abandons its rights.

Finding no labour relations policy requiring a vote in such circumstances, and noting the applicant had established sufficient membership support, the Board exercised its discretion to certify the applicant without a representation vote.

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

The parties agreed on a voting constituency description that differed from the existing collective agreement.

The Board accepted most of the agreed-upon changes as they did not alter the actual composition of the unit, but rejected the addition of the phrase 'persons covered by subsisting collective agreements' because it introduced potential uncertainty.

The Board directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be taken using the modified voting constituency description.

In an application for certification, the Board previously directed a pre-hearing representation vote and ordered the segregation of ballots for certain employee categories due to disputes over the bargaining unit description.

The applicant union and respondent employer subsequently agreed on the bargaining unit, and the applicant requested that the ballots of maintenance employees no longer be segregated, arguing the interveners had no status to object.

The Board rejected this late submission, noting the interveners arguably had status, and refused to revoke its direction to segregate the ballots pending a final determination of the appropriate bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote for employees of the two named respondents at a specific location.

The respondents argued that the voting constituency should also include employees of a third related company at a different location, and that a hearing must be held before any vote.

The Board rejected the respondents' argument that a hearing was a condition precedent to a pre-hearing vote, noting that the purpose of the procedure is to test representation quickly.

The Board defined the voting constituency to include only the employees of the two named respondents, directed a pre-hearing vote with separate ballot boxes, and ordered the boxes sealed pending a full hearing on the appropriate bargaining unit and related employer issues.