Pamela Chapman

The applicant union (CUPE) alleged that the employer hospital improperly assigned work normally performed by a Pharmacy Storekeeper in its bargaining unit to an Inventory Management Technician in the OPSEU bargaining unit.

The Board found that the work had historically been performed by a CUPE member and that the employer's preference for a technician did not justify removing the work from the CUPE unit, given the strong job protection language in the CUPE collective agreement.

The Board directed the employer to restore the work to the CUPE bargaining unit.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer taxi company violated the Labour Relations Act by increasing plate lease rates and strictly enforcing a ban on 'jump calls' during a union organizing campaign.

The Board found that while the lease rate increase did not violate the statutory freeze because it was announced prior to the certification application, it was tainted by anti-union animus and violated sections 70, 72, and 76 of the Act.

The Board also found that the stricter enforcement of the jump call ban constituted a change in working conditions that violated the statutory freeze under section 86(2).

The employer was ordered to restore the previous lease rates and jump call practices.

The applicants, former employees of General Motors who retired under a 1992 retirement incentive plan, alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation.

They claimed the union misrepresented their eligibility for a more lucrative $35,000 retirement allowance negotiated in 1993 and treated them differently from other employees who were permitted to return to active duty to qualify.

The Board dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith, noting that the union could not have known about the future incentive when the applicants enrolled in the earlier plan.

The United Steelworkers of America (USWA) applied for certification at two Provigo stores.

The United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) intervened, arguing that a pre-existing voluntary recognition agreement with Provigo barred the applications.

The Board found that the voluntary recognition agreement was entered into before any employees were hired at the new stores.

Applying section 66 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board concluded that the UFCW was not entitled to represent the employees at the time the agreement was signed, as employee choice played no role.

The Board terminated the UFCW's bargaining rights and directed a further hearing to determine if any other bar existed to the USWA's applications.

In the context of union certification applications, the intervenor and responding party sought to restrict the disclosure and use of a document they claimed was a voluntary recognition agreement.

The document had been produced to the applicant subject to a strict confidentiality undertaking.

The Board held that while an implied undertaking restricts the use of documents produced during litigation, this restriction ceases to apply once a document is admitted into evidence at a public hearing.

The Board found no compelling reason under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act or the Labour Relations Act to order the hearing closed or to restrict the use of the document outside the proceedings, emphasizing the importance of transparent decision-making.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees and the Ontario Nurses Association applied for certification and a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, concerning a retirement home, Livingston Lodge.

The unions argued that the various Meadowcroft entities and Nutra 2000, which was sub-contracted to manage the staff, were under common control and direction.

The Board found that the core activities of the retirement home were contracted out to Nutra 2000, but Meadowcroft retained strict control over the budget, staffing complement, and operations.

The Board concluded that the entities were engaged in related activities under common control and direction, and exercised its discretion to issue a related employer declaration to ensure a stable foundation for collective bargaining.

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

The union sought to dismiss the application, arguing the applicant failed to deliver copies of the Board's Interim Rules, an Information Bulletin, and a blank response form, despite delivering the application itself.

The Board found the issue was res judicata due to a prior decision ordering a representation vote.

Furthermore, the Board noted the union suffered no prejudice.

Since a majority of employees voted against the union, the Board declared the union no longer represented the employees.

The union applied for certification and the Board ordered a representation vote based on an appearance of 40% support, using the union's estimate of the bargaining unit size.

The employer argued that the Board should have considered the employer's calculation of the number of employees, which would have shown less than 40% support, and thus no vote should have been ordered.

The Board rejected this argument, confirming its practice of relying only on the union's estimate and membership evidence to determine the appearance of support under section 8(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

As the union won the representation vote, the Board issued a certificate pending final resolution of the bargaining unit description.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that a union steward harassed him in violation of sections 87(2)(a) and (b) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint without a hearing on the merits.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 96 of the Act to dismiss the complaint, finding that even if the facts alleged were true, the conduct did not clearly fall within section 87(2), the conduct had ceased long ago, and the requested remedies were unlikely to be granted.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the responding party's bargaining rights.

The responding party raised preliminary objections regarding the timeliness of the application and the failure to properly deliver it prior to filing.

The Board found that under the new Interim Certification and Termination Rules, applications are deemed filed on the date they are received by the Board, not the date they are sent by registered mail.

Because the application was received after the collective agreement had expired, it was untimely.

The application was dismissed, with one Board Member dissenting.

The applicant and intervenor employer requested reconsideration of a Board decision that found a ballot to be spoiled.

They argued the Board erred by relying on unreported decisions without seeking submissions and that the decision departed from Board policy.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the parties had full opportunity to argue the legal principle regarding spoiled ballots, and that the Board was not required to seek submissions on cases that merely confirmed established principles.

The Board maintained that the ballot did not clearly indicate the voter's intent.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 174 of the Environmental Protection Act, alleging he was disciplined as a reprisal for raising environmental concerns.

The employer requested the Board decline to inquire into the complaint because the discipline had already been the subject of a grievance arbitration, which was dismissed.

The Board exercised its discretion not to inquire into the complaint, citing the prior arbitration, the nature of the remedy sought, and the applicant's delay in filing the complaint.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit consisting of drivers and driver helpers at the employer's Mississauga warehouse.

The employer argued that its operations fell under federal jurisdiction due to inter-provincial transportation and that the proposed unit was inappropriate because it excluded warehouse personnel.

The Board held that the employer's operations fell within provincial jurisdiction, as its trucking activities were integral to its provincial distribution business and it did not operate as a common carrier.

However, the Board found the proposed bargaining unit inappropriate due to concerns about fragmentation and the shared community of interest between drivers and warehouse employees.

The Board indicated it would order a representation vote in the broader unit if requested by the union.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act through threats and discriminatory layoffs during a certification drive.

The Board found that a foreman's comments to employees regarding unionization constituted unlawful interference, intimidation, and threats.

Furthermore, the Board concluded that the employer failed to discharge its reverse onus to prove that the subsequent layoff of three employees was free of anti-union animus, as the asserted lack of work did not adequately explain the timing or extent of the layoffs.

The Board ordered the immediate reinstatement of the employees with compensation for lost wages.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to determine whether North Yorkers for Disabled Persons Inc., a group home providing 24-hour attendant care to physically disabled adults, is a 'hospital' under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The employer argued that the care provided was not medical and that the residents were capable of directing their own care.

The Board concluded that the extensive personal care provided to the residents, who suffer from physical illnesses or injuries, constitutes 'observation, care or treatment' within the meaning of the Act.

The Board advised the Minister that the facility is a hospital under the Act, with one member dissenting.

The applicant union applied for certification of a single retail store location.

The responding employer argued that a single store unit was inappropriate due to the frequent interchange of employees among its six Toronto-area stores and centralized training and buying practices, proposing instead a municipal-wide unit.

The Board applied the Hospital for Sick Children test and found that the single location unit would not cause serious labour relations problems.

The Board granted interim certification for the single store unit, pending the resolution of disputed supervisory classifications.

The employer applied to combine three bargaining units, while the union initiated a ministerial reference to determine if the employer's residential care program and the institution as a whole fell within the definition of a 'hospital' under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA).

The Board advised the Minister that both the residential care program and the entire treatment centre met the definition of a hospital, as they provided observation, care, and treatment to persons with physical and mental illnesses or disabilities.

Consequently, the Board directed that the three bargaining units be combined into a single unit.

The union applied for certification and won a representation vote.

The employer subsequently alleged improprieties by the union and its supporters on the voting days and sought to set aside the vote.

The Board held that the employer was precluded from relying on these allegations because it had signed a Consent and Waiver form despite being aware of the alleged improprieties at the time.

The Board further held that, even if true, the allegations would not have destroyed the secrecy of the ballot or prevented the true wishes of the employees from being expressed.

A certificate was issued to the union.

The union applied to combine two bargaining units of front-of-house movie theatre employees located in Toronto and Ottawa into a single unit under section 7 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer opposed the combination, arguing that the geographic and administrative disparity meant combination would not reduce fragmentation and would cause serious labour relations problems.

The Board found that combining the units would reduce fragmentation and facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining without causing serious labour relations problems, and ordered the combination.

One Board Member dissented, expressing concern over the efficacy of combining units in Toronto and Ottawa.

The applicant filed a complaint against the responding party union alleging a failure to act in good faith.

The applicant subsequently signed a request to withdraw the application, which the Board granted.

Several months later, the applicant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of the withdrawal decision, arguing he misapprehended the nature of the form.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration due to the applicant's unexplained delay in raising the issue after receiving the Board's decision confirming the withdrawal.