Owen V. Gray

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

The Board initially sealed the ballot box due to defects in the membership evidence, specifically the absence of collectors' signatures on the receipts and a problematic Form 9 Declaration.

After hearing oral evidence from the Form 9 declarant and the collectors, the Board was satisfied that the initiation fees were properly collected and the inquiries required by Form 9 were carried out.

The Board found the membership evidence satisfactory, unsealed the ballot box, and, upon counting a majority in favour of the applicant, granted certification.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

A group of objecting employees filed two statements of desire.

The second statement was delivered to the Board's offices after hours on the terminal date and left at the reception desk with a security guard who was not a Board employee.

The Board held that physical delivery to its premises constituted receipt under Rule 75(1)(a), making the filing timely.

The union argued the statements were involuntary because the employer had recently introduced written disciplinary warnings.

The Board rejected this argument, finding the employees were reacting to the behavior of union supporters rather than employer coercion.

Given the overlap between union members and objectors, the Board exercised its discretion to order a representation vote.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer failed to hire the grievor, a black carpenter, because of his race or colour, contrary to the collective agreement.

The grievor had repeatedly applied for work at a construction site and was told there was no work, but minutes later a white carpenter was hired.

The employer claimed the white carpenter was hired because the superintendent knew his work from a previous project.

The Board found the employer's explanation lacked credibility, noting inconsistencies in the superintendent's testimony and his failure to acknowledge the grievor's recent employment with the same employer.

The Board concluded that the refusal to hire was discriminatory and upheld the grievance, remaining seized of the remedy.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at Markham Hydro Electric Commission.

The union filed membership evidence demonstrating support from more than 55% of the employees.

However, a group of employees filed a petition objecting to the certification, which would normally prompt the Board to order a representation vote if found to be voluntary.

The Board determined that the petition was not a voluntary expression of employee wishes because it was prepared and circulated on company time, using company resources, and in the presence of a management foreman, creating a perception of management involvement.

The Board disregarded the petition and granted certification without a vote.

One Board member dissented, arguing that a secret ballot vote should have been ordered.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer failed to bargain in good faith during negotiations for a renewal collective agreement, leading to a prolonged strike.

The union argued that the employer engaged in surface bargaining, withdrew previous offers, and delayed responding to union proposals.

The Board found that the employer's initial hard bargaining and subsequent changes in position due to economic circumstances did not amount to bad faith.

However, the Board held that the employer violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to promptly respond to the union's fresh proposals presented in September 1983.

The Board issued a declaration of this violation but declined to award damages, noting that both parties shared responsibility for the breakdown in negotiations.

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

The membership evidence submitted with the application consisted of combination applications and receipts that lacked countersignatures from the collectors.

The union later submitted properly countersigned applications signed after the application date.

The Board held that only evidence of membership at the time the application was made could be considered under section 9(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

However, the Board found that the initial evidence was qualitatively sufficient to create the required appearance of support to direct a pre-hearing vote.

The Board directed the vote but ordered the ballot box sealed pending further argument on whether the defects in the membership evidence could be cured by viva voce evidence to satisfy section 9(4) of the Act.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of business occurred between British Brand Clothes Limited and Antonacci Clothes Inc., and that Antonacci Clothes was bound by the union's bargaining rights.

British Brand had ceased its clothing production operations and terminated its employees.

Patrick Antonacci, a former designer and minority shareholder of British Brand, incorporated a new company, purchased British Brand's production equipment, and hired several former employees to perform contract work, including exclusively supplying British Brand's continuing retail operation.

The Board found that a sale of part of a business had occurred under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, as there was a substantial continuation of the predecessor's business organization, equipment, and key personnel.

The Board declined to order a representation vote, finding that the sale did not create a representation issue requiring a vote.

The application was granted.

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

Both requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The respondent requested that the vote be deferred until September because the school year had ended and occasional teachers would not be called upon during the summer.

The Board declined to defer the vote, emphasizing that the purpose of the pre-hearing vote procedure is to test representation as quickly as possible.

The Board directed that the vote be held as soon as practicable, but ordered the ballots segregated and the ballot box sealed pending a future hearing to resolve disputes over voter eligibility and the propriety of a summer vote.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the respondent trade union.

The union argued that the applicant lacked status to bring the application because he was not an employee in the bargaining unit.

The Board found that the relevant bargaining unit was limited to employees in Board Area 8, and since the applicant worked in Hamilton and was not part of that unit, he had no status to apply.

The application was dismissed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued several decisions regarding applications for certification and unfair labour practice complaints.

In the first case, the Board found that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act when three managers obtained signatures on a petition opposing the trade union.

The Board directed a representation vote and ordered remedial measures, including a posting and union access to employees.

Other decisions addressed the appropriate bargaining unit for a specialized business centre in a department store, a duty of fair representation complaint involving municipal technical employees, a sale of a business application concerning a retail food store, and the exclusion of a chemical control supervisor from a bargaining unit based on community of interest.

The applicant trade union sought a declaration that the respondent was bound by its collective agreement with Dominion Stores Limited, alleging a sale of business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent had opened an Italian-style supermarket in the same shopping plaza premises previously occupied by Dominion, after Dominion surrendered its lease and the respondent entered into a new lease with the landlord.

The respondent also purchased some of Dominion's leftover fixtures.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the transactions were independent and the respondent's presence represented the expansion of its existing parallel business rather than the purchase of Dominion's business.

The complainant alleged that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to process her termination grievance to arbitration.

The union admitted the breach and agreed to a remedial order directing the grievance to arbitration and waiving the collective agreement's time limits.

The employer opposed the order, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to waive time limits because section 44(6) of the Act delegates that power exclusively to arbitrators.

The Board held that section 89(4) grants it broad remedial authority to override collective agreement provisions, including time limits, and that section 44(6) does not make an arbitrator's jurisdiction exclusive.

However, the Board ruled that it could not issue the consent order without a hearing on the merits, as the employer is a proper party and is entitled to put the complainant to the proof of her case before any remedy affecting the employer is granted.

During a hearing into a complaint of bad faith bargaining, the complainant union served a summons duces tecum on an officer of the respondent employer, requiring the production of payroll and benefit records for all employees during a strike.

The union alleged the employer demanded concessions while paying strike replacements and salaried employees higher wages and benefits.

The employer objected to producing records for salaried and managerial employees, claiming confidentiality.

The Board ordered the production of the records for any employees who performed bargaining unit work during the strike, finding the information potentially relevant to assessing the employer's motivation and economic justification for its bargaining positions.

The Board directed the documents be deposited with the Registrar to facilitate examination and potential enforcement proceedings.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the respondent union regarding grievances with his employer, Ryder Truck Lines.

The union raised a preliminary objection that the employer's labour relations fall under federal jurisdiction.

The Board found that the employer operates as a functionally integrated part of an international highway transport undertaking.

Consequently, the Board ruled it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the matter falls under the Canada Labour Code, and dismissed the complaint.

The complainants, members of the respondent union, alleged that the union violated section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to provide them with copies of hiring hall out-of-work lists and job referral records.

The union raised preliminary objections, arguing that a refusal of information cannot violate section 69, that the individual union officer should be struck as a respondent, that the Board should defer to internal union processes, and that the complaint lacked particulars.

The Board held that an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith refusal to provide referral information can violate section 69.

The Board struck the individual officer from the style of cause, declined to defer to internal union processes, and ordered the complainants to file further particulars before the matter would be relisted for hearing.

The complainant trade union filed an unfair labour practice complaint 15 months after the termination of an employee, alleging the discharge was motivated by anti-union animus.

The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the complaint should be dismissed due to extreme delay.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed its jurisprudence on delay and the equitable doctrine of laches.

While finding the delay of 11 months unreasonable, the Board concluded that the respondent suffered no substantial prejudice or adverse reliance that would make it unfair to proceed.

The respondent's motion to dismiss was denied, though the Board noted the delay could affect the ultimate remedy and the assessment of the complaint's merits.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed petitions objecting to the certification.

The Board found that the union had submitted sufficient membership evidence (over 55%) to be certified without a vote, and that the overlap between the petition signatures and the membership evidence was insufficient to cast doubt on the union's majority support.

The objectors raised late allegations of coercion and intimidation regarding the collection of membership evidence.

The Board refused to entertain the late allegations, noting they lacked timely particulars and relied on hearsay.

The Board granted the application and issued a certificate.

The applicant employee sought to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights under section 59 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the union failed to give notice to bargain within 60 days of certification.

The union had met with employees and agreed to delay bargaining until a pattern settlement was reached with other employers in the area.

The Board found that the union had not slept on its rights, as the delay was intentional, bona fide, and agreed upon by the employees present at the meeting.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent teachers employed by the respondent at Humewood House School.

The respondent objected, arguing the applicant was not a trade union under the Labour Relations Act because it included principals and vice-principals who exercise managerial functions.

The Board questioned its own jurisdiction, noting that the Labour Relations Act does not apply to teachers as defined in the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act.

The Board declined to accept the parties' agreement on jurisdiction and the appropriate bargaining unit, and directed a further hearing to receive evidence on these issues.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint and sought certification without a vote under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively, a new representation vote.

The union alleged that the employer violated the Act by mailing a letter to employees shortly before a pre-hearing representation vote, which contained implied threats and promises regarding an existing employee association.

The Board found that the employer's letter constituted undue influence in violation of section 64 of the Act.

The Board set aside the results of the representation vote but declined to certify the union without a vote, concluding that the adverse impact of the employer's conduct could be rectified by remedial measures, including a new vote, a union meeting on company premises, and the posting of a Board notice.