Pamela C. Picher

The applicant union sought to set aside a representation vote, alleging that the intervener union breached the Board's silent period by campaigning in the days immediately preceding the vote.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's representative had waived any objection to the regularity of the balloting by signing a Consent and Waiver form prior to the counting of the ballots.

Furthermore, the Board concluded that the isolated technical breach of the silent period did not unfairly influence the outcome of the vote.

A certificate was issued to the intervener.

The complainant, a welder-fitter, was indefinitely laid off by his employer, which was intended as a permanent discharge.

The union declined to file a grievance on his behalf.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union official's investigation was superficial and that he failed to ask the complainant for his side of the story before concluding a grievance would be futile.

The Board held that the union acted arbitrarily and breached its duty of fair representation, ordering the union to file and process a grievance to arbitration.

Sixteen employees filed an unfair labour practice complaint against their employer, Dufferin Aggregates, alleging that the employer was attempting to destroy the union by assigning work to another company.

The union declined to join the complaint.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the employees lacked status to bring the complaint without the union's support and that the Board should defer to arbitration.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that individual employees have status to bring a complaint under section 66(a) of the Labour Relations Act to protect their individual rights, even without union support.

The Board also declined to defer to arbitration, as the complaint alleged a breach of the Act rather than merely a violation of the collective agreement.

In an application for certification where two competing unions both submitted membership evidence in excess of 55 per cent, the Board reconsidered its initial decision to include a 'no union' option on the representation vote ballot.

The Board concluded that because either union would normally be entitled to outright certification based on their membership support, the true question was which union the employees wanted, not whether they wanted a union at all.

The Board amended its decision to eliminate the 'no union' option, directing that the ballot only offer a choice between the two competing unions.

The union applied for certification.

The employer alleged that the union used threats and undue influence to obtain membership evidence from two employees.

The Board found the union's witnesses credible and dismissed the employer's charges, concluding no wrongdoing occurred.

The Board also denied the employer's request for an adjournment, which was sought because the employer's adviser was on a golf holiday, emphasizing the need for expedition in certification proceedings.

A certificate was issued to the union.

One Board Member dissented, finding the allegations of threats credible and would have ordered a vote.

The applicant union filed an application for certification without requesting a pre-hearing vote.

The intervener union subsequently filed an application by way of intervention and requested a pre-hearing vote.

The applicant objected to the intervener's membership evidence, arguing it should be assessed as of the applicant's application date rather than the terminal date.

The Board held that when a subsequent application requesting a pre-hearing vote is heard together with a regular application, both are treated as regular applications.

The Board assessed membership evidence as of the terminal date, found both unions had sufficient support, and ordered a representation vote.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer discharged the grievor due to anti-union animus, contrary to section 66(a) of the Labour Relations Act.

The grievor, who was the sole employee responsible for the union's organizing drive, walked off her shift after complaining that her section of the restaurant was unfairly overloaded.

The employer maintained that her departure constituted a resignation and refused to allow her to return to work.

The Board found that the employer was unaware of the grievor's union activities at the time of her discharge and that the decision was based entirely on her conduct of leaving customers unattended.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to employ an operating engineer to operate an elevator used for lifting men and materials on a construction site.

The employer argued that the management rights clause gave it the discretion to decide whether to employ an operator.

The Board held that article 2.2 of the collective agreement required the onsite operation of the elevator to be performed by a union member whenever it was used to move men and materials.

The grievance was allowed and the employer was ordered to compensate the union for the losses flowing from the breach.

The union applied for certification to represent by-law enforcement officers employed by the respondent security agency.

The respondent objected, arguing the officers were members of a police force under the Police Act and thus excluded from the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the officers were not appointed by a board of commissioners of police, were not subject to its government, and were not employed in a police force.

The Board concluded the officers were not members of a police force and granted the application for certification.

The employer filed complaints alleging the union violated the Labour Relations Act by calling an unlawful strike and breaching a prior settlement agreement.

A union business agent had instructed employees to remain in the cafeteria for 15 minutes past their break to resolve a dispute between managers.

The Board assumed a technical breach of the Act but declined to issue a remedy, noting the stoppage was brief, unpremeditated, and resolved the underlying issue.

The Board also found no clear violation of the settlement agreement.

The complaints were dismissed.

The complainant, a hospital employee, was discharged and sought to file a grievance.

He informed a union steward that he needed to travel out of town urgently and asked if delaying the grievance filing by a week would be a problem.

The steward assured him it would not, despite knowing the collective agreement required discharge grievances to be filed within three days.

As a result, the hospital denied the grievance as untimely.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the union's conduct constituted gross negligence and arbitrary representation in violation of section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the union to take the grievance to arbitration on the merits and to bear the burden of any compensation attributable to the delay.

The applicant applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights and filed a statement of desire signed by over 45% of the bargaining unit.

The union subsequently filed a counter-petition reaffirming support, signed by several employees who had signed the initial statement.

The Board held that the counter-petition was relevant and represented the last voluntary expression of the employees' wishes prior to the terminal date.

As the counter-petition reduced the number of employees opposing the union to below 45%, the application for termination was dismissed.

The applicant union sought declarations under sections 1(4) and 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union alleged that a sale of a business occurred between Norfinch Developments Limited and Norfinch Construction (Toronto) Limited, and that various Norfinch and Samteit companies were related employers.

The Board found no sale of a business had occurred, as no part of the predecessor's business was transferred to the successor during a corporate break-up.

However, the Board granted a related employer declaration with respect to Norfinch Developments Limited and the Samteit companies, finding they were under common control and direction.

The applicant union applied to displace the incumbent union as the bargaining agent for the respondent's plant employees.

The applicant won the representation vote.

The incumbent union argued that the application should be dismissed under section 13 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the employer provided support to the applicant.

The incumbent also argued that the vote was invalid because the employer failed to implement an arbitration award requiring the discharge of employees who did not pay union dues.

The Board found no evidence of employer support for the applicant and concluded that the employer's response to the arbitration award did not invalidate the vote.

The Board certified the applicant union.

The applicant union and intervener union both applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent.

The respondent argued that the representation vote should be delayed until July 1982 due to a planned build-up of its workforce.

The Board applied the planned build-up principle, balancing the rights of current and future employees.

Finding that the expansion beyond January 1982 was dependent on uncertain market factors, the Board determined that a representative group of employees would be present by August 1, 1981, and ordered an immediate representation vote.

The union filed grievances alleging the employers violated the collective agreement by failing to provide or pay for screws and nails used by drywall applicators.

The employers complained the union bargained in bad faith by remaining silent on the issue during negotiations to alter past practice.

The Board held that the union's silence did not constitute bad faith bargaining, as the employers should have known the terms of the preceding agreement.

Interpreting the new collective agreement, which was silent on the issue unlike its predecessor, the Board found the employers were obligated to supply the materials and could not deduct their cost from piecework rates.

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the employer responded to its organizing campaign by relocating two union supporters, discharging the primary union organizer, and forcing another supporter to resign.

The employer claimed the relocations and terminations were for business reasons, including efficiency and absenteeism.

The Board found that the employer's actions were motivated by anti-union animus in violation of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the discharged employees with full compensation, along with a posting order, union access to the employer's premises and bulletin board, and a list of employee names and addresses.

The Board declined to award damages for loss of dignity or additional organizing expenses, and denied the union's request for consent to prosecute.

The applicant unions sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Ferro Structural Steel (Toronto) Limited (F.S.S.) and Ferro Erectors (Toronto) Limited (F.E.) constituted one employer, thereby binding F.S.S. to a province-wide collective agreement.

While the Board found the companies were under common control and direction, it declined to exercise its discretion to grant the declaration.

The Board held that the union knew or ought to have known for many years that F.S.S. was not bound by the agreement and was sub-contracting to non-union erectors, yet failed to act with sufficient dispatch to protect its bargaining rights.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Two timely statements of desire (petitions) were filed in opposition.

The union argued the petitions were not voluntary due to comments made by a petitioner at a union meeting and a letter distributed by the employer regarding an altercation between employees.

The Board found that the petitioner was not perceived as management and his comments were personal views.

The Board also found the employer's letter to be evenhanded and not coercive.

Concluding the petitions were voluntary, the Board exercised its discretion to order a representation vote.

Board Member Fenwick dissented.

The union applied for certification.

The employer challenged the inclusion of four persons, arguing they exercised managerial functions.

The Board found all four were employees.

The union also requested certification without a vote under section 7a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the employer committed unfair labour practices.

The Board found the employer violated the Act by suspending a union supporter, withdrawing overtime from union supporters, threatening employees, and posting a notice threatening to reduce holidays.

Concluding that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained in a representation vote and that the union had adequate support, the Board certified the union without a vote.