P. J. 0 'Keeffe

The applicant union and respondent hospital reached a settlement regarding the status of disputed employees in an application for certification, leading the Board to grant final certification.

However, objecting employees subsequently informed the Board that they did not sign the settlement because they disagreed with it, not because they declined to participate.

The Board reconsidered its decision, revoked the final certification, granted interim certification, and reappointed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the disputed individuals.

The applicant union brought a motion requesting the Board to direct the respondents to comply with the duty imposed by sections 1(5) and 63(13) of the Labour Relations Act to adduce all material facts regarding successor rights and related employer allegations.

The respondents had tendered witnesses who could only provide hearsay evidence regarding the formation of the related entities.

The Board held that the tendering of hearsay evidence did not comply with its previous direction or the statutory onus, as the applicant is entitled to cross-examine on the direct considerations involved in the transactions.

The Board directed the respondents to tender direct evidence concerning the events leading up to the formation of the entities.

The applicant union sought to include a warranty clerk and a cashier in the bargaining unit of service and parts department employees.

The respondent employer argued they were office staff and should be excluded.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board examined the duties, supervision, and working conditions of the two employees.

Applying the community of interest criteria, the Board found that their work was primarily clerical and their functional coherence and interdependence lay with the general accounting office rather than the production employees.

Consequently, the Board excluded both employees from the bargaining unit.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer failed to bargain in good faith and unlawfully locked out employees during first contract negotiations.

The union argued that the employer engaged in surface bargaining and that the lockout, along with the use of temporary replacement workers, was motivated by anti-union animus.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer had engaged in permissible hard bargaining rather than surface bargaining.

The Board concluded that the employer's refusal to agree to a compulsory union membership clause was based on a genuine matter of principle, and that the lockout was lawfully motivated by a desire to control the timing of a work disruption and to pressure the union into modifying its bargaining positions.