Pamela Chapman

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 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 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 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.

The applicant union sought interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the employer refused to meet to bargain and prohibited all union communication at the workplace.

The employer had refused to bargain pending its request for reconsideration of the union's interim certification.

The Board found an arguable case that the employer's conduct violated the Act and that the balance of harm favoured the union.

The Board ordered the employer to meet with the union to bargain in good faith and to permit the posting of union notices in the workplace.

The applicant union sought interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, requesting the interim reinstatement of a key inside union organizer who was discharged shortly after commencing organizing activities.

The employer argued the discharge was for cause, citing the employee's unauthorized removal of a confidential memo.

The Board applied its two-step test for interim relief, finding that the union had established an arguable case of an unfair labour practice.

In balancing the harm, the Board concluded that the potential chilling effect on the organizing campaign outweighed the employer's concerns about a breach of trust, particularly given the early stage of the campaign.

The Board ordered the interim reinstatement of the employee and the posting of a notice, but declined to order interim compensation.

The applicant union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the employer interfered with its organizing campaign through bulletins, warnings to organizers, and the announcement of wage and benefit increases.

The Board found that the employer violated sections 65 and 67 of the Labour Relations Act by issuing coercive bulletins, arbitrarily enforcing a no-solicitation rule against organizers, and announcing benefits in a manner that constituted undue influence.

However, the Board declined to grant certification without a vote under section 9.2, concluding that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained through a representation vote following extensive remedial orders, including the posting of notices and union access to the workplace.

The employer applied to combine two bargaining units represented by two separate local unions affiliated with the same international union.

The responding unions requested that the application be dismissed without a hearing because section 7(1) of the Labour Relations Act requires the employees to be represented by the same trade union.

The Board found that the two local unions were separate entities and dismissed the application without a hearing.

The applicant, a probationary employee, alleged he was terminated as a reprisal for complaining about the availability of protective gloves and/or because he developed dermatitis from handling oiled parts.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the employer discharged the applicant due to poor performance, erratic productivity, and poor attitude, rather than any health and safety animus.

The Board noted the applicant had not made any formal health and safety complaints prior to his termination and the employer had accommodated his request for gloves.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties initially agreed on the bargaining unit description and waived a formal hearing, after which the count was released showing the union in a certifiable position.

An owner of the responding party subsequently requested a hearing, arguing the manager misunderstood the agreement and seeking to exclude part-time employees and students.

The Board held that parties generally cannot resile from an agreement after the count is released.

Regardless, the Board found the union's proposed unit including both full-time and part-time employees was deemed appropriate under section 6(2.1) of the Labour Relations Act.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at a nursing home.

The employer argued that Registered Nurses and the Activity Director should be excluded from the unit because they exercised managerial functions under section 1(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board reviewed the duties of both positions, finding that the Registered Nurses' supervisory and reporting functions were professional rather than managerial, and that the Activity Director did not exercise effective control over employees or important aspects of the employer's business.

The Board concluded that neither position exercised managerial functions and issued a final certificate for the bargaining unit.

The union referred two grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the employers violated the provincial collective agreement by refusing to pay a $70.00 per diem travel allowance to employees working in a designated geographic zone.

The employers argued that the allowance was only payable if employees incurred overnight accommodation expenses, and that they could require proof of actual expenses.

The Board held that the plain language of the collective agreement entitled employees to the allowance whenever they worked a day in the zone, regardless of whether they incurred accommodation expenses.

The agreement only permitted a reduction in the allowance if the employer and the union agreed.

The grievances were allowed.

The applicant union sought certification for two bargaining units of front-of-house staff at movie theatres operated by the responding party in Brampton and Scarborough.

The responding party argued for a broader geographical bargaining unit encompassing the Greater Toronto Area, mirroring the scope clause of an existing collective agreement for projectionists.

The Board found that the single-theatre and municipal units proposed by the applicant were viable and appropriate for collective bargaining, noting the obstacles to organizing on a broader basis.

The Board granted the applications and issued certificates for both bargaining units.