P.J. O'Keeffe

The Board convened a hearing to resolve implementation issues arising from its prior decision, which found the employer had unlawfully discharged a key union organizer.

The employer had refused to distribute the Board's decision to all employees, prompting the Board to clarify that individual delivery at the employer's expense was required.

On the issue of compensation, the employer argued the grievor failed to mitigate her damages.

The Board held that the duty to mitigate in unfair labour practice cases differs from wrongful dismissal, as the employee expects reinstatement and may continue union activities.

Finding the grievor made reasonable efforts to mitigate, the Board awarded $11,007.47 in lost wages and benefits.

Claims for general damages for mental distress and costs were denied.

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 trade union applied for certification to represent occasional teachers employed by the respondent school board.

The Board found that the applicant was a trade union and that the proposed bargaining unit of occasional teachers was appropriate.

The Board determined that occasional teachers were not covered by existing collective agreements with other unions, as they had been historically overlooked and fell under the Labour Relations Act by default.

Finding that more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the unit were members of the applicant, the Board granted the certificate.

The applicant sought a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The Board assessed whether the petitions signed by employees represented their voluntary wishes.

The Board found that the active involvement of the general manager's wife in the origination and circulation of the petitions would have led employees to reasonably perceive that management had a vested interest in the termination of bargaining rights and would be aware of who signed.

Consequently, the Board concluded the petitions were not voluntary and dismissed the application.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the grievor was dismissed when the respondent employer failed to recall him from a layoff.

The respondent raised several preliminary objections, including that the grievor lacked status as an employee, notice requirements were not met, the grievance was untimely, and the collective agreement contained no recall rights.

The Board dismissed all preliminary objections, finding that the grievor's status could not be determined without hearing the merits, the notice provided was sufficient, there were reasonable grounds to extend the time limits, and the grievance disclosed a cause of action with some chance of success.

The matter was directed to proceed on its merits.

The applicant union applied for certification.

During the proceedings, it was revealed that two major collectors of membership cards had deliberately misled the union president regarding the direct payment of the $1.00 initiation fee by certain employees.

The union president had signed the Form 9 declaration without noting these exceptions.

The Board found that the reports from these two collectors, who gathered over 80% of the cards, were unreliable.

Consequently, the Board could not be satisfied that the union had the requisite 45% membership support for a representation vote or 55% for outright certification.

The application was dismissed without a bar.

The complainants, former warehouse employees of Dominion Stores, alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation (s. 68) and violated the successor rights provisions (s. 63) of the Labour Relations Act when it agreed to a proposal by A & P. A & P had purchased Dominion stores and the warehouse operation, but insisted on integrating the warehouse under the A & P collective agreement, effectively endtailing the Dominion employees' seniority.

The union accepted the proposal without a ratification vote, believing it was the only way to save 250 jobs.

The Board found that the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith, as its assessment of the situation was reasonable and it faced a difficult decision balancing competing interests.

The Board also exercised its discretion under s. 63(6) to declare that A & P was no longer bound by the Dominion collective agreement due to the intermingling of employees.

The complaints were dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's Brown's Line location.

The respondent argued that the appropriate unit should include employees at both its Brown's Line and Queensway locations in Metropolitan Toronto.

Applying the Usarco criteria, the Board found a strong community of interest between the employees at the two locations due to integrated operations and regular employee movement.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit encompassed all employees in Metropolitan Toronto.

As the union's membership evidence related to fewer than 45 per cent of the employees in this broader unit, the application was dismissed.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer violated sections 64 and 66 of the Labour Relations Act by discharging a grievor without first holding a pre-disciplinary meeting with union representation.

The grievor's discharge had already been upheld at arbitration, where the arbitration board found the collective agreement provision regarding pre-disciplinary meetings to be directory only.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board upheld the employer's preliminary objection, finding that the failure to hold a meeting did not constitute a prima facie violation of the statutory right to representation, as the grievor was not confronted by the employer in an imbalance of power and was fully represented during the grievance and arbitration process.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant trade union sought certification for a single bargaining unit comprising all employees of the respondent's grocery store, excluding managers and certain others.

The respondent employer argued that the meat department employees should form a separate bargaining unit due to a distinct community of interest.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the meat department employees and other employees shared the same working conditions and common supervision, and did not possess a distinct and different community of interest.

The Board determined that the single bargaining unit proposed by the applicant was appropriate and directed that a certificate issue.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer discharged an employee contrary to the Labour Relations Act due to his union organizing activities.

The employee had a history of absenteeism and alcoholism but was discharged shortly after engaging in union campaigning and making a pro-union speech in the company cafeteria.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the reverse onus under section 89(5) of the Act, requiring the employer to prove that the discharge was not tainted by anti-union animus.

The Board found the employer's explanation for delaying the discharge to consult with other managers unpersuasive and concluded the employer failed to discharge its burden of proof.

The Board ordered compensation but declined to order reinstatement as the employee had already accepted other employment prior to his discharge.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the complaint, finding ample just cause for the discharge independent of any union activity.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board, alleging the respondent employer violated a provincial collective agreement.

The respondent raised preliminary objections, arguing it was not bound by any collective agreement, or alternatively, that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights or was estopped from enforcing them.

The Board found that the respondent's president had signed a document intending to bind his company to the union, which constituted a valid voluntary recognition agreement binding the respondent to the provincial agreement.

The Board further held that the union had not abandoned its bargaining rights and was not estopped from enforcing the agreement, as it had acted diligently upon learning of potential violations.

The Board directed the parties to seek a settlement on liability and damages.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a unit of maintenance employees who were already part of a larger plant-wide bargaining unit represented by the intervener trade union.

The applicant sought to carve out these employees under section 6(1) of the Labour Relations Act, arguing they had not been adequately represented by the intervener.

The Board held that this reason alone was insufficient to depart from its established policy requiring a displacement applicant to take all employees in the existing bargaining unit.

Finding the proposed unit inappropriate for collective bargaining, the Board dismissed the application and directed the destruction of the ballots cast in the pre-hearing representation vote.

The applicant employee applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The Board found that the employer's president had assisted the applicant by finding a lawyer to represent the employees, and that this involvement was conveyed to the other employees at a meeting held on the employer's premises.

The Board concluded that the employer's conduct interfered with the employees' ability to voluntarily express their wishes.

As the statement of desire was not voluntary, the application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether certain supervisors exercised managerial functions.

The respondent employer argued the application was untimely and should not proceed because the parties were engaged in a lawful strike and the supervisors were performing production work.

The Board held that the parties were 'in the course of bargaining' and the application was timely.

The Board noted that evidence of duties performed during the strike was irrelevant, but directed an officer to inquire into the supervisors' regular duties and responsibilities.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a unit of maintenance electricians employed by the respondent mining company.

The union argued that the electricians constituted a craft unit deemed appropriate under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board reviewed extensive evidence of the union's bargaining practices across various industries in Canada and the United States.

The Board found that outside the construction and related industries, the union did not commonly bargain separately and apart for maintenance electricians.

Consequently, the union failed to meet the mandatory criteria of section 6(3) and was not entitled to a separate craft bargaining unit.

The applicant union sought declarations under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that a sale of a business occurred between Arbis Construction Ltd. and Tony Azar Construction, and that they constituted one employer.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the reverse onus provisions in the Act violated section 11 of the Charter.

The Board dismissed the Charter challenge, finding the provisions were merely evidentiary.

On the merits, the Board found that Arbis, an insolvent general contractor, and Azar, a newly formed masonry business, were neither associated or related in their activities nor under common control or direction.

The applications were dismissed.

The complainants, drivers for Dufferin Concrete Products, alleged that their union, Teamsters Local 230, breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

The dispute arose when the employer closed a plant and sought to dovetail the seniority lists of Local 230 and Local 879.

Local 230 initially opposed dovetailing and appealed to the International union.

However, after the International dismissed the appeal and ordered compliance with the Joint Council's decision to dovetail, Local 230 accepted the ruling.

The Board found that Local 230 did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith in ultimately accepting the constitutional authority of the International union, and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent taxi company breached sections 15 and 43 of the Labour Relations Act during negotiations for a second collective agreement.

The respondent took the position that the owner-operators and drivers in the bargaining unit were not 'employees', despite a prior Board certificate and collective agreement recognizing them as such.

The respondent also refused the union's demand for a mandatory dues check-off provision under section 43, arguing that the dependent contractors did not receive 'wages' from which dues could be deducted.

The Board held that the respondent's refusal to recognize the employees constituted bad faith bargaining under section 15.

The Board further held that section 43 applies to dependent contractors, interpreting 'wages' broadly to include the compensation or reward they receive, and ordered the respondent to cease its refusal to negotiate an appropriate check-off provision.

Following a finding that the employer unlawfully discharged a union president, a hearing was held to determine the quantum of compensation.

The employer disputed the employee's entitlement to lost overtime pay and failed to appear at the hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board awarded the employee $200.61 for lost overtime.

However, the majority of the Board declined the union's request for costs, reaffirming its policy that costs are generally not awarded in Board proceedings, despite the employer's non-appearance.

One Board member dissented, arguing that the employer's flagrant disregard for the Board's process warranted a full costs award.