Paula Knopf

The applicant union applied for certification to displace the incumbent union representing police officers at the University of Toronto.

The incumbent union and the employer argued that the application was untimely because their collective agreement had been extended pursuant to the Social Contract Act.

The Board held that the Social Contract Act does not explicitly or implicitly protect incumbent bargaining agents from displacement applications during the open periods defined in the Labour Relations Act.

The Board concluded that the application was timely and directed that the ballots cast in the pre-hearing representation vote be counted.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by denying reporting pay to afternoon shift employees who were sent home due to severe weather.

The employer had determined that gale-force winds and flying debris created an emergency endangering employee safety, necessitating a shutdown of the shift.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement granted the employer the subjective discretion to determine when an emergency shutdown was necessary to protect life and safety.

The Board concluded the employer's decision was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and was in fact reasonable under the circumstances.

The complainant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to properly represent him after he was discharged for 'over-booking' production.

The Board found that the union acted arbitrarily by failing to conduct a full investigation, failing to question the complainant about the details of the company's audit, and deciding not to proceed to arbitration without considering his plausible defense that his actions were sanctioned by management.

The Board ordered the union to take the grievance to arbitration.

During a hearing regarding alleged violations of section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, the complainants objected to the respondents introducing evidence of conversation details that had not been put to the complainants during cross-examination, arguing it offended the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

The Board ruled that the rule in Browne v. Dunn applies strictly to evidence intended to impeach a witness's credibility.

However, evidence tendered simply to add details to conversations, without intending to impeach credibility, does not offend the rule and is admissible, though the failure to cross-examine may affect its weight.

The complainant union alleged that the grievor, a bartender/waiter, was discharged during his probationary period due to his union involvement and attempts to assert rights under the collective agreement, contrary to the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer claimed the discharge was due to allegations of theft and customer complaints.

The majority of the Board found that while the circumstances raised a strong suspicion of anti-union animus, the employer had satisfied the reverse onus by proving the discharge was motivated solely by the allegations of theft reported by a trusted employee.

The complaint was dismissed, with one Board member dissenting.

The applicant union applied for a declaration under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act that it was the successor to the Melnor Manufacturing Ltd. (Brantford) Shop Union following a merger.

The respondent employer argued that the predecessor union's constitution did not permit a merger without unanimous consent, relying on the common law principles in Astgen v. Smith.

The Board rejected this argument, finding that the predecessor union had validly amended its constitution to permit the merger by a majority vote, and that the statutory framework of the Labour Relations Act supersedes the common law requirements for unanimous consent.

The Board granted the declaration of successor rights.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees applied for certification of a part-time bargaining unit at the Toronto General Hospital.

The central issue was whether students employed during the school vacation period should be included in the part-time unit or excluded.

The Hospital argued for their exclusion, citing potential conflicts of interest and the viability of a separate student unit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied its established policy of grouping part-time employees and summer students together to avoid undue fragmentation.

Finding no compelling evidence of irreconcilable conflict or that the students could form a viable separate unit, the Board ordered the inclusion of summer students in the part-time bargaining unit and issued a certificate.

The applicant union filed a grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act seeking remittances from the respondent employer.

The employer argued it was not bound by the collective agreement, alleging the union representative misrepresented the terms of a voluntary recognition agreement before it was signed.

The Board found no material misrepresentation, concluding the employer simply misunderstood the scope of the agreement.

The Board declared the employer bound by the Provincial Agreement and remained seized of the quantum of damages.

The complainant union alleged that the grievor was discharged contrary to section 66 of the Labour Relations Act due to his union activities during a legal strike.

The employer maintained the grievor was discharged for intimidating and threatening conduct on the picket line when he reached into a company van transporting replacement workers.

The Board found the employer met its burden under section 89(5) to prove the discharge was not motivated by anti-union animus, but rather by the grievor's picket line misconduct.

The Board also found no breach of the Act regarding the employer's failure to reinstate the grievor under the 'no reprisals' clause, as the settlement was prospective.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act that a sale of a business occurred between Canada Safeway Limited and the respondent.

The respondent had subleased a former Safeway location and purchased some fixtures after Safeway closed the store.

The respondent extensively renovated the premises to open an ethnically-oriented supermarket.

The Board found that the respondent did not acquire Safeway's business, but merely purchased idle assets to expand its own successful, pre-existing business.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant alleged that an individual held both a managerial function and a union position, resulting in a breach of the duty of fair representation and a violation of the Labour Relations Act.

The complainant sought relief that would effectively bar the individual from the bargaining unit.

The Board raised concerns that the individual had not been named as a party.

The complainant requested an adjournment to add the individual as a party, which the respondents opposed due to previous delays.

The Board granted the adjournment, finding that it would be a denial of fundamental justice to proceed without giving the affected individual notice and party status.

The union applied for certification to represent employees of a child and family services agency.

The parties disputed the inclusion of two classifications in the bargaining unit.

The Board found that 'househeads' exercised managerial functions, including effective recommendation on hiring, discipline, and performance evaluation, and excluded them due to a conflict of interest.

However, the Board found that 'child care teachers' shared a community of interest with the other child care workers, noting similarities in conditions of employment and functional interdependence, and included them in the bargaining unit.

The applicants, two secretaries employed by the Niagara South Board of Education, applied under section 47 of the Labour Relations Act for an exemption from paying union dues to the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) based on their religious convictions.

They objected to the union's affiliation with the Ontario Federation of Labour's pro-choice resolution on abortion, the union's constitutional defence of the right to strike, and the lack of reference to God in the union's oath.

The Board applied the Wybenga test and found that the applicants' beliefs were sincerely held, religious in nature, and the actual cause of their objection to paying dues.

The Board granted the applications, ordering that the dues be remitted to a mutually agreed charitable organization.

One Board member dissented, arguing that objections to non-collective bargaining issues like abortion resolutions should not justify a total exemption from dues.

The complainant, a discharged employee, alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to take his discharge grievance to arbitration.

The discharge arose from a physical altercation in the parking lot involving the complainant, the union plant chairman, and a union steward.

The Board found that the plant chairman, who had instigated the altercation by greasing the complainant's car, presented the case to the union membership without disclosing his own involvement or conflict of interest.

The Board concluded that the union's decision not to arbitrate was tainted by this conflict of interest and animosity, amounting to arbitrary, discriminatory, and bad faith conduct.

The Board ordered the union and employer to arbitrate the grievance forthwith and directed the union to engage independent counsel jointly chosen with the complainant.

The respondent employer applied for reconsideration of a previous Board decision, arguing that the individual who signed the voluntary recognition agreement lacked authority to bind the company, and raising issues regarding craft jurisdiction and man-hours.

The employer had failed to attend the original hearing despite receiving notice.

The Board dismissed the application for reconsideration, noting that the employer had the opportunity to raise these issues at the initial hearing and that the evidence sought to be adduced was available at that time.

The Board emphasized the need for finality in its decisions and expressed concern over the six-month delay in bringing the reconsideration request.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the college violated the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act by assigning make-up work to academic staff without mutual consent or additional remuneration following a legislated end to a strike.

The college brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board found that the college was not required to consult the union before assigning the work, as the assignments did not exceed the maximum teaching hours under the collective agreement and were consistent with the back-to-work legislation.

The Board concluded that the allegations could not reasonably or arguably establish a breach of the Act and dismissed the complaint without a hearing.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union regarding a 1974 discharge grievance that the union dropped in 1978.

The union and the employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the timeliness of the complaint, which was filed in 1985.

The Board found that the extreme delay of at least seven years since the cause of action crystallized caused substantial prejudice to the respondents due to fading memories, lost documentation, and the death of a key witness.

The Board declined to inquire into the merits and 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 process his discharge grievance to arbitration and by failing to properly represent him in other matters.

The Board found that the union had considered the merits of the grievance, including the complainant's disciplinary record and the likelihood of success at arbitration, before the membership voted against proceeding.

The Board concluded that the union's decision was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant union (CLAC) sought a declaration that a collective agreement between the respondent union (SEU) and the employer was void insofar as it granted voluntary recognition for geographic areas where the employer had no facilities or employees.

CLAC argued this constituted unlawful employer support designed to give SEU an organizing advantage.

The Board dismissed the application as premature, holding that it will not decide hypothetical questions or issue declarations regarding future rights where no employees are currently affected.

The complainant alleged that the union breached section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by preventing him from being name hired on a pipeline construction project, contrary to the union's by-laws.

The union had agreed with the contractor at a pre-job conference to limit name requests to protect members on the out-of-work list.

The Board found that the union's policy was an established practice aimed at protecting unemployed members and was not applied arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith against the complainant.

The complaint was dismissed.