P. R. Seville

The applicant union sought a declaration of successor rights, arguing that the opening of a Ruth's Chris steakhouse in the hotel premises formerly occupied by Trader Vic's constituted a sale of a business under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union argued that the downtown location was a key asset transferred to the new restaurant.

The Board found that the transaction was merely a lease of space and that no part of the predecessor's business, other than the location itself, was transferred.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration alleging the responding party Bank violated the collective agreement by subcontracting carpentry work to a non-union contractor on a Sheppard Avenue project.

The Bank argued it was estopped from applying the agreement based on a prior Board decision (the Davie decision), which held that the Bank was not required to apply the agreement to contracts entered into before May 3, 1995.

The Board found that while the bidding process and selection occurred before May 3, 1995, the formal commercial contract was not executed until May 17, 1995.

Therefore, the estoppel did not apply, and the Bank was bound by the collective agreement for this project.

The grievance was allowed, with one member dissenting.

The applicant unions brought applications under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act concerning the sale of an answering service business from Rogers Cantel Paging Inc. to AAS Telecommunications Services Limited.

Rogers raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the sale was from a federal undertaking.

The Board found that Rogers operated the answering and paging services as a fully integrated business, which constituted a federally regulated undertaking.

The Board concluded it has no jurisdiction under section 69 to consider a sale of part of a federally regulated operation to a provincially regulated company, and dismissed the applications.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

The responding party asserted that the employees were already represented by an incumbent employees' association under a collective agreement.

Finding that the applicant had the requisite support, the Board directed a representation vote.

Voters will cast two ballots: one for representation by the applicant, and a second choosing between the applicant and the incumbent association, pending a future determination of the association's trade union status.

The union filed a certification application but withdrew it before a representation vote upon learning the employer had more employees than anticipated.

The Board permitted the withdrawal without imposing a bar.

The employer sought reconsideration, arguing that section 7(9) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 mandates a bar upon withdrawal.

The Board held that section 7(9) grants discretion to determine whether to impose a bar and its length.

Finding no abuse of process and that employee wishes had not yet been tested, the Board declined to impose a bar.

A certificate was issued in the union's subsequent successful application.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 174 of the Environmental Protection Act, alleging he was disciplined as a reprisal for raising environmental concerns.

The employer requested the Board decline to inquire into the complaint because the discipline had already been the subject of a grievance arbitration, which was dismissed.

The Board exercised its discretion not to inquire into the complaint, citing the prior arbitration, the nature of the remedy sought, and the applicant's delay in filing the complaint.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by denying a leave of absence request from a key inside union organizer, which led to her resignation.

The employer failed to call the district manager who made the decision to deny the leave.

Applying the reverse onus provision, the Board concluded that the employer failed to prove its decision was free from anti-union animus.

The Board directed the employer to reinstate the grievor to her former position.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent the ground staff at the responding party's golf and country club.

The responding party argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should include both the ground staff and the clubhouse staff.

The Board found that the ground staff shared a distinct community of interest, separate from the clubhouse staff, due to differences in work locations, hours, supervision, and budgets.

Applying the test from The Hospital for Sick Children, the Board concluded that the ground staff constituted a viable bargaining unit and that their certification would not cause serious labour relations problems.

The application for certification was granted for the ground staff unit.

During a hearing for an unfair labour practice complaint, the applicant union sought to cross-examine the employer's former solicitor regarding communications with the employer about an alleged plan to contract out delivery services.

The employer objected on the basis of solicitor-client privilege.

The union argued that the privilege had been waived by the employer calling the solicitor as a witness, or alternatively, that the communications fell under the crime or fraud exception.

The Board upheld the objection, finding that the employer had only waived privilege with respect to a specific settlement discussion, and that the crime or fraud exception did not extend to alleged breaches of the Labour Relations Act.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer terminated two employees and intimidated others during an organizing campaign.

The employer did not attend the hearing, citing financial inability to travel to Toronto, and the Board declined to change the venue to Thunder Bay based on its travel policy.

The Board found that the employer breached sections 65, 67, and 71 of the Labour Relations Act by terminating the employees for their union support and creating a climate of fear.

The Board ordered the employees reinstated and certified the union under section 9.2 of the Act.