Patricia Hughes

In an application for certification, a dispute arose over a segregated ballot cast by an employee who the union alleged had assumed managerial duties after the voters list was fixed but before the vote was taken.

The Board amended its previous direction, ordering a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the employee's duties and responsibilities as of the date the vote was taken to determine if she should be excluded under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote to displace the incumbent union.

The parties agreed to two bargaining units, but one unit contained only a single employee.

The Board noted it cannot certify a unit of one employee under s. 6(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

To preserve all options for the post-vote hearing, the Board struck a single, broad voting constituency encompassing both proposed units and directed that all ballots be segregated.

The Board also dismissed the employer's preliminary objection regarding the incumbent union's failure to bargain, noting no s. 59(2) declaration had been made, and deferred a timeliness objection to the post-vote hearing.

The applicants sought a declaration under section 58 of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent union no longer represented the employees, alleging that a supervisor was involved in the union's organizing drive and intimidated employees into signing membership cards.

The Board dismissed the application without an inquiry into the merits, finding that the allegations, even if true, did not constitute fraud within the meaning of section 58.

The Board noted that such allegations of employer involvement and intimidation could be filed under other sections of the Act, but would raise concerns of timeliness.

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

The parties agreed on a bargaining unit description but disputed the inclusion of numerous individuals.

The applicant also requested that the respondent provide a list of employee names and addresses, which the Board denied because the request was not raised at the prior Officer's meeting.

Finding an appearance of sufficient support, the Board directed the taking of a pre-hearing representation vote, with disputed individuals permitted to cast segregated ballots.

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

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description but disputed the inclusion of numerous individuals.

The applicant also requested that the respondent provide a list of employee names and addresses, which was raised after the Labour Relations Officer's meeting.

The Board directed the pre-hearing representation vote but declined to entertain the request for the employee list because it was not raised at the Officer's meeting, emphasizing the importance of raising all issues at that stage to ensure expeditious processing.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The central issue was whether an employee was performing carpentry work on the date of the application.

Applying the Gilvesy test, the Board found that while the employee was employed and at work on the application date, he spent the majority of his time chipping concrete columns rather than performing carpentry work.

As this left only one employee in the proposed bargaining unit, the application for certification was dismissed pursuant to subsection 6(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The complainant alleged that his former employer and union conspired to dismiss him, contrary to the Labour Relations Act.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the complaint should be dismissed due to delay and res judicata.

The majority of the Board refused to dismiss the complaint on the basis of delay, finding that the complainant only had suspicions until the alleged conspiracy was made public, and that res judicata did not apply.

The Board unanimously ruled that the reverse onus provision in subsection 89(5) applied, as the complaint involved allegations of anti-union animus affecting employment.

The Board ordered the employer to proceed first with its evidence.

The complainant, a former Dominion store employee, alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by withdrawing his lay-off grievance.

The withdrawal was part of a complex global settlement negotiated by the union following the conversion of Dominion stores to Mr. Grocer franchises.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union balanced competing interests and made a reasonable decision to abandon certain grievances to secure a settlement, which did not constitute arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union violated section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by requiring part-time and full-time employees to pay union dues according to the same formula, resulting in part-time employees paying proportionately more of their wages.

The Board dismissed the complaint, ruling orally that the union's dues structure is an internal union matter and falls outside the scope of the duty of fair representation under section 68.

The applicant union applied for certification and agreed with the respondent employer on a bargaining unit description for office and clerical employees that excluded technical employees.

Because this departed from the Board's usual 'office, clerical and technical' description, a hearing was held to determine its appropriateness.

The Board emphasized its statutory obligation to determine the appropriate unit regardless of the parties' agreement, but ultimately accepted the proposed unit as appropriate in the circumstances.

The Board appointed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the duties of several individuals whose inclusion in the unit remained in dispute.

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

The grievance arose after the employer removed her from a newly awarded position, determining that the position should not have been posted as another employee was already performing the work in that classification.

The Board found that the union directed its mind to the merits of the grievance and made a reasoned decision based on established practice and the collective agreement.

The complaint was dismissed.

Following a successful representation vote and certification of the Canadian Paperworkers Union, the intervener union requested that the Board revoke the certificate or order a new vote.

The intervener alleged that the applicant union distributed a forged legal opinion to employees prior to the vote.

The Board found that while a union representative had fabricated the letter, it did not constitute fraud under section 58 of the Labour Relations Act because it was not a representation made to the Board.

The Board declined to reconsider its decision or order a new vote, concluding that the contents of the letter did not deprive employees of their ability to exercise their critical faculties.

The complainants alleged contraventions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Labour Relations Act.

During preliminary matters, the Board ruled on two issues.

First, the Board ordered that the complainant's adviser be permitted to attend a view of the respondent's premises, finding it necessary for a fair hearing and noting no prejudice to the respondent.

Second, the Board dismissed the respondent's request to exclude the press from the hearing room, holding that hearings are presumptively open to the public and the respondent had not met the onus under section 9(1)(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to justify an in camera hearing.

The union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the employer contravened the collective agreement by failing to recall a long-term employee after a layoff.

The collective agreement required the employer to exercise its management rights in a 'fair and reasonable' manner.

The Board found that the employer's continued assurances to the grievor that he would be recalled, while secretly deciding not to recall him, demonstrated a serious lack of regard and violated the fairness requirement.

The Board ordered compensation for the grievor.

The applicant union sought certification for crews on commercial fishing boats operating on Lake Erie.

The respondent boat owners raised preliminary objections, arguing that fishing crews are excluded from the Ontario Labour Relations Act as persons employed in 'hunting or trapping' under section 2(b), and alternatively, that labour relations in the fishing industry fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction pursuant to the 'Navigation and Shipping' or 'Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries' powers of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed both objections.

The Board held that fishing is distinct from hunting and trapping, and that the intra-provincial commercial fishing operations are not integral to the federal powers over navigation or the preservation of fisheries as a natural resource.

Consequently, the Board asserted jurisdiction to hear the certification applications.

The applicant union sought a declaration of successor status following a purported merger with the Staff Association.

The Board found that while the Staff Association had properly amended its constitution to permit mergers, it failed to hold a separate, required vote to approve the specific merger with the applicant.

As the employees had only voted on the constitutional amendment and not the merger itself, the Board dismissed the application.

The complainant filed a reprisal complaint under section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, alleging he was dismissed for attempting to enforce the Act.

The respondent employer raised preliminary objections, including that supervisors lack status to bring such complaints and that the complainant failed to provide adequate particulars.

The Board ruled that supervisors are subsumed under the definition of 'worker' and therefore have status to bring a section 24 complaint.

However, after providing the complainant multiple opportunities to provide adequate particulars regarding his allegations, which he failed to do, the Board dismissed the complaint.

The complainant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to pursue her grievance regarding her seniority upon transferring into the bargaining unit.

The union had obtained a legal opinion and determined that pursuing the grievance would negatively impact the seniority rights of other bargaining unit members.

The Board found that the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith, as it reasonably interpreted the collective agreement and balanced the competing interests of its members.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union filed multiple applications for certification, and pre-hearing representation votes were held.

At the initial hearing, the respondents requested a stay of proceedings, arguing that labour relations in fisheries fall under federal jurisdiction and that a constitutional challenge was pending in the courts.

The Board declined to stay the proceedings, affirming its jurisdiction to determine its own constitutional jurisdiction in the first instance.

The Board also declined the union's request to require notice to the Attorneys General, distinguishing between Charter challenges, where notice is required, and division of powers cases, where the Board is merely determining its threshold jurisdiction.

The union applied for certification for full-time and part-time employees of the respondent hotel.

The Board addressed two preliminary matters: a request by objecting employees to extend the terminal date because their petition was stolen, and a motion by the union to dismiss the employer's allegation that a union organizer offered kickbacks during a previous campaign.

The Board refused to extend the terminal date, finding the petitioners did not exercise sufficient caution with the document.

The Board also dismissed the kickback allegation without a hearing, ruling that alleged misconduct in a prior campaign could not taint fresh membership evidence in the current campaign.

The part-time certification application was dismissed for insufficient support, while the full-time application was deferred pending resolution of remaining disputes.