P. Grasso

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the employer laid off and terminated several employees due to their involvement in a union organizing campaign.

The employer claimed the layoffs were strictly due to economic difficulties and lack of work.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's actions were motivated, at least in part, by anti-union animus.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the affected employees with compensation for lost wages and directed the employer to mail a notice of the decision to all bargaining unit employees.

The interveners and respondents requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsider its previous decision regarding the interpretation of collective agreements and the permitting of a craft carve-out for carpenters.

The Board reviewed its broad power to reconsider decisions under section 106(1) of the Labour Relations Act but noted its stringent approach requiring obvious error, new policy issues, or new conclusive evidence.

Finding that the parties were merely seeking to re-argue the case and that no relevant ambiguity existed in the agreements, the Board dismissed the requests for reconsideration while making minor typographical amendments to the original decision.

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 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 interveners sought clarification and reconsideration of a prior Board decision regarding document production and summonses.

The Board clarified its directions, varied one subparagraph on consent, and otherwise denied the request for reconsideration.

The Board affirmed that the documents in question were arguably relevant to the issues and must be produced, despite the potential burden of compliance.

During proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the applicant issued summonses to two individuals requiring them to produce various documents relating to collective agreements and bargaining history.

The interveners objected to the scope of the summonses, arguing they were overly broad, irrelevant, and constituted a fishing expedition.

The Board held that a party seeking production through a summons need only demonstrate that the documents are arguably relevant to the matters in issue.

Finding that the requested documents were arguably relevant to the interpretation of the collective agreements and the admissibility of extrinsic evidence, the Board ordered production but narrowed the scope of the summonses to ensure they were not overly broad.

The applicant union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration pursuant to section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The union argued that collective bargaining was unsuccessful because the respondent employer maintained uncompromising positions without reasonable justification, specifically insisting on a three-year term and refusing to include a seniority rights or job security clause.

The Board found that the employer's refusal to grant seniority rights, especially given the history of unlawful terminations for union activity, and its insistence on a three-year term were without reasonable justification.

The Board directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The applicant union applied for certification for two bargaining units (full-time and part-time) at the respondent's workplace.

The respondent argued that a representation vote should be ordered because it planned to double its workforce in the coming months.

The Board found that the current employees in both units constituted at least fifty percent of the anticipated workforce and were therefore sufficiently representative.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and issued certificates to the applicant for both bargaining units.

The applicant employee association applied for certification.

The Board found that the applicant was not a properly formed trade union within the meaning of section 1(1)(p) of the Labour Relations Act because its constitution was not adopted or ratified by its members, and its officers were not elected by members.

Furthermore, the constitution improperly excluded casual, temporary, and probationary employees from membership.

The application for certification was dismissed.

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

The Board found that the applicant had the requisite membership support and directed that a pre-hearing vote be taken.

The intervener requested that the ballot box be sealed based on allegations that the applicant's organizers told employees they would have to join later and pay $25.00 if they did not sign a card.

The Board declined to seal the ballot box, finding that the allegations, even if established, would not affect the applicant's entitlement to the pre-hearing vote.

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 union applied for certification to represent employees of the Elizabeth Fry Society of Ottawa.

The parties disputed the composition of the bargaining unit, specifically regarding Ontario Youth Corps Programme participants, relief workers, students, and contract employees.

The Board found that Youth Corps participants were employees but excluded them from the bargaining units due to their unique terms of employment and lack of community of interest.

The Board applied its standard 7-week rule to determine part-time status for relief workers and its 30/30 rule to determine which employees were in the bargaining unit on the application date.

The Board certified the union on an interim basis for the full-time unit and appointed a Labour Relations Officer to settle the part-time unit list.

The complainant alleged that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to actively participate in or fund her independent legal counsel for a judicial review application brought by her employer.

The employer was seeking to quash a previous Board decision that had found both the employer and the union in breach of the Act.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union's decision was based on the advice of legal counsel and was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The union was not obligated to underwrite the complainant's legal costs for the judicial review.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 107 of the Labour Relations Act regarding his authority to appoint an employer nominee to a board of arbitration under section 44(4).

The arbitration was previously directed by the Board as a remedy for unfair labour practices committed by both the employer and the union, which had resulted in the complainant's termination.

The employer refused to appoint a nominee, arguing that it had applied for judicial review and that the arbitration was not pursuant to the collective agreement.

The Board advised the Minister that the arbitration process contemplated by its remedial order is a process under the collective agreement to which section 44(4) applies, and therefore the Minister has the legal authority to appoint the employer nominee.

The applicant union brought an application under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act alleging a sale of a business and related employer status among the respondents.

At a preliminary hearing, the respondents argued that filing a written statement of facts and certain commercial documents was sufficient to satisfy their evidentiary onus under sections 1(5) and 63(13) of the Act, without producing witnesses for cross-examination.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rejected this argument, holding that the statutory onus requires respondents to produce witnesses to testify under oath as to the material facts of the transactions and relationships, and to be subject to cross-examination.

The Board directed the matter to be relisted for hearing.

The complainant national union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the respondent employer contravened section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to bargain exclusively with a trustee appointed by the national union.

The local union had voted to disaffiliate and challenged the trusteeship's validity.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding the employer was willing to bargain in good faith but was thwarted by the internal union dispute over bargaining rights, and was not using the dispute as a pretext to avoid its obligations.

The applicant union sought to include dispatchers in an all-employee bargaining unit at the respondent automobile club.

The respondent argued that dispatchers shared a greater community of interest with office and clerical staff and should be excluded.

Applying the Usarco criteria, the Board analyzed the nature of the work, conditions of employment, skills, administration, geographic circumstances, and functional coherence.

The Board found that the dispatchers' shift work, geographic location, and functional interdependence with the drivers strongly favoured their inclusion in the bargaining unit.

The Board concluded that the dispatchers shared a community of interest with the other employees in the unit and were an appropriate inclusion.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The issue was whether the applicant met the 45% threshold of employees in the bargaining unit.

The union argued that 13 persons whose employment was terminated due to subcontracting should be counted if their pending grievance succeeded.

The employer argued for the 30/30 rule, which would exclude them.

The Board held that under section 1(2) of the Labour Relations Act, the terminated individuals should be treated as employees if reinstated by the arbitration board.

The matter was adjourned pending the release of the arbitration award.