Paula Knopf

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 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 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 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.

The respondent employer requested the Ontario Labour Relations Board to enforce a previous award, alleging the applicant union failed to distribute trust monies to employees as ordered.

The union raised a preliminary objection regarding the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the employer's request, ruling that it lacks statutory authority to enforce its own awards.

Under section 44(11) of the Labour Relations Act, enforcement must be pursued through the Supreme Court.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the statutory freeze period by denying work to bargaining unit employees and using managerial staff to perform their duties after an application for certification was filed.

The employer claimed a seasonal downturn in business but failed to produce documentary evidence to support this.

The Board drew an adverse inference against the employer and found a violation of the statutory freeze provisions.

The employer was ordered to compensate the affected employees for lost wages and benefits.

The complainant, a member of the respondent union, filed a complaint under section 85 of the Labour Relations Act seeking the release of the union's audited financial statements.

The union opposed the complaint, arguing that the complainant was acting as an agent for a rival union, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW), which she actively supported.

The Board held that the complainant's support for a rival union did not disentitle her to access the financial information of her own union under section 85.

The Board ordered the respondent union to deliver the audited financial statements to the complainant.

The applicant union filed a construction industry grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer violated the collective agreement by hiring members of Local 675 instead of Local 18 for drywall work.

At the outset of the hearing, the respondent requested an adjournment because Local 675 had not received notice of the proceedings.

The Board granted the adjournment, finding that Local 675's members could be adversely affected by the outcome and that their interests could not be adequately represented by the mutual employee bargaining agency or the respondent employer.

The complainant, a probationary employee who was discharged, alleged that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

She claimed the union acted arbitrarily by failing to argue at arbitration that she had a substantive right to grieve her discharge despite her probationary status.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union representative's lack of awareness of a specific legal argument did not amount to arbitrary conduct.

The representative had conducted a thorough investigation, put his mind to the case, and made a reasoned decision to pursue a strategy based on the invalidity of the probation extension, which did not constitute a flagrant error or reckless behavior.