Patricia Hughes

The applicant union applied for certification for employees of the respondent cleaning contractor.

The employer argued that the bargaining unit should be limited to a specific street location, while the union sought a municipal-wide unit.

The Board applied its usual practice and granted a municipal-wide unit, finding no compelling reason to depart from it despite the employer being in the contract cleaning industry.

The Board also dismissed the employer's allegations that the union intimidated employees or misrepresented job security, finding no prima facie case of a section 70 violation.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

During a union certification application involving a large proposed bargaining unit, a pre-hearing vote was held with approximately one-third of the ballots segregated due to challenges by the respondent employer.

The parties agreed to a procedure for Labour Relations Officers to examine the challenged persons.

During the inquiry, the employer sought orders from the Board to require the Officers to make a full inquiry into certain duties and to permit the employer to add to the list of challenged individuals, effectively appealing the Officers' rulings.

The Board dismissed the request, holding that it is inconsistent with the expeditious conduct of an Officer's inquiry to interrupt it to review rulings, and directed the Officers to continue their inquiry.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer, a fishing company, committed an unfair labour practice by failing to rehire seven seasonal deckhands for the 1987 fishing season because of their support for the union.

The employer argued that the crew reduction was for legitimate business reasons and that the grievors had failed to formally request employment.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's departure from its usual informal hiring practices was orchestrated to exclude the grievors due to their union affiliation.

The Board declared a contravention of section 66(a) of the Labour Relations Act and ordered compensation for the lost 1987 and partial 1988 seasons.

The applicant union sought leave to withdraw its application for certification after a pre-hearing representation vote had been taken but before the ballots were counted.

The respondent opposed the withdrawal.

Applying its usual practice, the Board denied leave to withdraw, dismissed the application, and imposed a six-month bar on any new application by the union for the same employees, noting that the union's apparent support was vulnerable and did not warrant a departure from the Board's established practice.

The applicant union sought leave to withdraw its application for certification after a pre-hearing representation vote had been taken but before the ballots were counted.

A group of employees objected to the withdrawal and requested that the Board count the ballots and certify the union chosen by the majority.

The Board held that it cannot compel a union to pursue an application it no longer wishes to pursue, regardless of the employees' wishes.

However, because the request to withdraw came after the vote had been taken and without the employer's consent, the Board denied the request to withdraw and instead dismissed the application, imposing a six-month bar on future applications by the applicant for the same employees.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union applied for declarations under the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act that the Crown transferred undertakings to several private entities, including Moose Creek Forestry Company, Harold Luckasavitch, and Charmaine's Janitorial Services.

The functions involved transplanting seedlings, operating park campgrounds, and providing janitorial services.

The Board found that the provision of these services constituted 'undertakings' or parts of undertakings within the meaning of the Act, rather than mere sub-contracts for labour.

The Board declared that the undertakings were transferred to the private entities, binding them to the collective agreement between the Crown and the union.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act that a sale of a business occurred between the respondent hotel and a newly established brew pub operating within the hotel's premises.

The union argued the hotel contracted out its food and beverage operations.

The Board found that the relationship was a standard commercial landlord-tenant arrangement and that the brew pub was a separate and parallel business, not a continuation of the hotel's former operations.

The application was dismissed.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by terminating two employees, holding a captive audience meeting, questioning employees about union membership, and assaulting a union official on the picket line.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the terminations, the meeting, and the questioning were motivated by anti-union animus and constituted unlawful interference and discrimination.

The Board dismissed the allegation regarding the picket line assault, finding it was a personal altercation rather than intimidation under the Act.

The employer was ordered to reinstate the terminated employees with compensation and post a notice of the violations.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to process a grievance regarding unpaid gratuities.

The union was subsequently decertified.

The Board found that the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith prior to its decertification.

Furthermore, the Board held that the duty of fair representation under section 68 ceases entirely once a union is decertified, even for matters that arose prior to decertification.

The complaint was dismissed.

The parties settled unfair labour practice complaints prior to the scheduled hearing and requested the Board to issue their Minutes of Settlement as an Order of the Board and remain seized of its implementation.

The Board declined to issue an order, noting the settlement did not specify what order was requested or the basis for it.

The Board also declined to remain seized, advising the parties that the settlement is binding and enforceable pursuant to subsection 89(7) of the Labour Relations Act.

The complaints were ordered terminated one year from the date of the decision.

The applicant union sought certification for occasional teachers employed by the respondent board of education.

A pre-hearing representation vote was held, with ballots of French language secondary school teachers segregated due to a dispute over their inclusion in the bargaining unit.

The Board found that evidence was required to determine the community of interest between English and French occasional teachers and directed a Labour Relations Officer to conduct an inquiry.

However, because the union won the vote regardless of the segregated ballots, the Board granted interim certification.

An employee challenged the procedure for segregating ballots in a pre-hearing representation vote, expressing concern that the secrecy of the ballot was compromised because his voter number appeared on the outer envelope.

The Board explained the two-envelope system used for segregated ballots, confirming that the inner envelope and the ballot itself contain no identifying marks, and that ballots are mixed before counting to ensure secrecy.

The Board found no merit in the employee's concerns and declined to direct a new vote.

The union applied for certification to represent employees at the respondent's hatchery.

The employer objected, arguing the employees were employed in agriculture and thus excluded from the Labour Relations Act under section 2(b).

The union countered that section 2(b) violated the Charter.

The Board unanimously found that the hatchery employees were employed in agriculture.

On the preliminary issue of jurisdiction, the majority held that the Board is a 'court of competent jurisdiction' under section 24(1) of the Charter and has the authority under section 52(1) to determine whether the agricultural exemption is constitutional.

The employer's objection to jurisdiction was dismissed, and the matter was directed to be scheduled for a hearing on the Charter challenge.

A dissenting member would have found the Board lacked jurisdiction to strike down the exemption.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent company violated the Labour Relations Act by unilaterally starting a new apprentice electrician at the third-year rate, bypassing the Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee.

The company brought a preliminary motion requesting the Board to defer the matter to arbitration.

The Board found that the essence of the complaint involved the interpretation of the collective agreement and the scope of the Joint Committee's duties.

Concluding that the dispute was primarily contractual and that arbitration was an adequate and appropriate forum, the Board granted the motion, deferred to the arbitration process, and declined to hear the complaint on its merits.

In an application for certification, the union requested a copy of the employee list filed by the employer to keep.

The employer objected, arguing this was a departure from Board practice.

The Board affirmed that natural justice principles and practical considerations generally entitle a union to review and keep a copy of the employee list without a Labour Relations Officer present.

However, because the parties had already agreed on the voters list and there were no outstanding challenges, the Board declined to order the employer to provide the original employee list, but directed that a copy of the voters list be provided to the union.

The complainant union (CUPE) alleged that the respondent university violated section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by prohibiting the University of Toronto Staff Association (UTSA) from using the university's internal mail service to distribute CUPE organizing materials.

UTSA had historically enjoyed unrestricted access to the mail system.

The university argued that permitting the distribution of union organizing materials would constitute employer support for a trade union, violating sections 13 and 64 of the Act.

The Board held that the university's restriction of an existing practice constituted interference with the union's rights.

The Board declared a violation of section 64 and directed the university to permit UTSA access to the internal mail service in the manner previously enjoyed.

The applicant union applied for certification and a pre-hearing representation vote was held, resulting in a tie.

One segregated ballot was cast by an employee whose inclusion in the bargaining unit was initially challenged by the union but supported by the employer.

Before a Labour Relations Officer could inquire into the employee's duties, the union withdrew its challenge, but the employer simultaneously sought to change its position to exclude the employee.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that a party may not raise new challenges to the composition of the bargaining unit after the vote has been counted, as this would encourage gerrymandering.

The employee was included in the unit, but because counting his single segregated ballot would reveal his preference, the Board directed the taking of a second representation vote.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The employer objected that the application was untimely because the intervener union failed to commence bargaining within sixty days of giving notice to bargain, which the employer argued continued the collective agreement.

The Board found the notice to bargain was valid and terminated the agreement, making the application timely.

The Board also determined that a single bargaining unit encompassing both plant and office employees was appropriate given the small number of employees, departing from its normal practice of separating them.

The Board directed the counting of the segregated ballots.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The intervener union sought intervener status, claiming it represented employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board considered whether dues check-off lists constitute membership evidence for intervener status, the appropriate time for determining representation, and when membership evidence must be filed.

The Board found that the intervener submitted adequate evidence of representation in a timely manner and granted it status to participate as an intervener.

The applicant union, Local 353, sought a declaration of successor rights under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act, claiming it acquired the jurisdiction of Local 636 over the employees of the respondent employer.

The employer objected, arguing the transaction was not a transfer of jurisdiction and expressing concern about being bound by a provincial agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that a valid transfer of jurisdiction had occurred in accordance with the union's constitution, and that the employees had been adequately notified and voted in favour.

The Board granted the declaration, noting that a successor union acquires only the rights and privileges of its predecessor.