P. V. Grasso

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by discontinuing the practice of providing free movie passes to newly unionized front-of-house employees immediately after their first collective agreement was signed.

The employer argued it was merely enforcing an 'entire agreement' clause.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the employer was entitled to rely on the clause, its differential treatment of the front-of-house staff compared to unionized projectionists (who continued to receive passes) demonstrated an anti-union animus.

The Board declared a violation of section 72 and ordered the employer to cease and desist the discriminatory practice.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to determine whether the employer, Meadowcroft Holdings Inc., is a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA).

The employer operates a retirement living centre providing accommodation, meals, and varying degrees of medical and personal care to elderly residents.

The Board applied an institutional approach rather than a purely labour relations approach, focusing on the nature of the care provided rather than the potential impact of a strike.

The Board concluded that the employer's focus on the accommodation, observation, assessment, and supervision of aged residents qualifies it as a home for the aged, and therefore it is a 'hospital' under the HLDAA.

The applicant union sought interim relief to prevent the exclusion of certain employees from the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act pending a decision on the merits.

The Board held that while section 98 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 limits interim orders to procedural matters, section 16.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act grants the Board a broader, general power to make interim orders related to its jurisdiction, which prevails due to the override provision in section 32 of the SPPA.

However, the Board declined to grant interim relief in this case, primarily because the applicant was unwilling to proceed expeditiously with a hearing on the merits.

The union applied for automatic certification under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the employer committed unfair labour practices during an organizing campaign.

The employer actively promoted an alternative 'staff association' and indefinitely suspended the lead inside union organizer for conducting union business on company time.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the employer's conduct violated sections 70, 72, and 76 of the Act.

The Board concluded that the cumulative effect of the employer's actions created a climate where a representation vote would not likely reflect the true wishes of the employees.

Consequently, the Board granted automatic certification without a vote.

The employer applied for a declaration terminating the union's bargaining rights for a unit of security guards under the transitional provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

As a preliminary issue, the employer argued that the doctrine of issue estoppel applied based on a 1994 Board decision between the same parties that found a conflict of interest existed.

The majority of the Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that while the facts had not changed, the statutory context and the legal test for conflict of interest had materially changed under the new legislation.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to schedule a hearing on the merits.

One Board member dissented.

The applicants alleged that the responding union violated section 79(9) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by establishing a ratification and strike vote procedure that was not reasonably convenient and did not provide ample opportunity to cast ballots.

The union had to organize a vote for approximately 65,000 employees across 4,000 work sites within 14 days.

The Board found that the union's voting arrangements, which included scheduling specific times and places while accommodating individual requests for changes, were sensible and responsive to diverse employee needs.

The Board held that 'reasonable convenience' under section 79(9) requires considering all circumstances, including the union's logistical challenges, and does not guarantee a vote during working hours or at the workplace.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought to terminate the responding party trade union's bargaining rights under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the union obtained its certificate by fraud.

The employer claimed the union filed membership evidence for individuals it knew were not employed by the employer.

The Board dismissed the application on preliminary objections, finding that the employer had received notice of the original certification application but failed to respond.

The Board held that the union's assertion of the employer's identity in the certification application, even if incorrect, did not constitute fraud, as the employer had the opportunity and obligation to dispute it during the certification process.

The applicant union (AAHP:O) sought a declaration that the employer properly assigned the work of a newly hired Genetic Counsellor to its bargaining unit.

The responding union (ONA) argued the work belonged exclusively to its nurses' bargaining unit, as nurses had historically performed the work.

The employer and AAHP:O advocated for a composite crew approach, allowing both nurses and non-nurses to perform the role depending on their qualifications.

The Board held that ONA's collective agreement language protecting work normally performed by nurses, combined with the employer's past practice of exclusively using nurses for the role since 1976, outweighed the employer's preference for a multi-disciplinary approach.

The Board ordered the employer to restore the assignment of the work to the ONA bargaining unit.

The applicant union was certified by the Board under section 6(2) of the old Labour Relations Act pending the resolution of a dispute over the composition of the bargaining unit.

Shortly after, the new Labour Relations Act, 1995 came into force with retroactive transitional provisions applying to proceedings where a final decision had not been issued.

The responding party employer argued the new Act should apply and a representation vote should be held.

The Board held that a certification decision under section 6(2) (now 9(2)) is a final decision regarding the union's substantive right to certification.

Therefore, the transitional provisions did not apply and the certification remained valid.

The applicant union alleged that the responding municipality violated the duty to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by withdrawing a wage offer and refusing to negotiate retroactive wage increases.

The employer argued that its actions were justified by the financial impact of the Expenditure Reduction Program and the Social Contract Act.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the employer recognized the union, was prepared to enter into a collective agreement, and was entitled to withdraw its wage proposal due to changed financial circumstances.

The applicant union sought to certify a bargaining unit of chicken catchers employed by the responding party.

The responding party argued that the employees were agricultural workers and therefore excluded from the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that catching chickens in the barns where they are raised is a harvesting function integral to the agricultural operation, distinct from the industrial processing of the chickens.

Consequently, the employees were deemed agricultural workers, and the certification application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification for a unit of ironworkers in the construction industry.

The responding party employer argued the application was untimely because the employees were already covered by a collective agreement with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM).

The Board found that the work performed on the application date was construction work within the jurisdiction of the Ironworkers, and that the IAM collective agreement did not cover this work.

As the IAM agreement was not a bar, and the applicant had the requisite membership support, the Board granted the application and issued the certificates.

The applicant union alleged a sale of a business from Ontario Place Corporation to MCA Concerts Canada, claiming MCA was bound by a collective agreement as a successor employer.

The Board determined as a preliminary issue whether a collective bargaining relationship existed between the union and Ontario Place Corporation.

The Board found that the historical arrangement for supplying stagehands and lighting personnel was a sub-contracting relationship for specialized technical services, not a collective bargaining relationship.

The letter agreements lacked standard collective agreement language and were seasonal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The applicant union filed complaints alleging the responding employers violated the Labour Relations Act by using replacement workers during a strike.

The employers objected that the union had not held a valid strike vote under subsection 73.1(2)2.

The union had conducted a single strike vote among employees of all employers bound by the terms of an unaccredited employers' association collective agreement.

The Board held that the voting constituency was improper because the employees did not all face the same prospect of a strike, as individual employers could withdraw from the association bargaining.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant, who operated an insulation business with his wife, applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

The union brought a non-suit motion, arguing the applicant was a principal of the company and that the application was not voluntary.

The Board granted the non-suit motion and dismissed the application, finding that even if the applicant were considered an employee, the decision to bring the application was made jointly with his wife, who managed the business.

Therefore, the application did not represent a voluntary expression of employee wishes free from management influence.

The applicant union applied for a work assignment direction regarding the classification of Health Promoter, which the employer had assigned to the responding union's all-employee bargaining unit.

The applicant argued the work should be assigned to its paramedical bargaining unit.

The Board considered the employer's preference, the community of interest, and the interdisciplinary nature of the work.

The Board concluded that it was in the best interests of sound labour relations to sustain the employer's assignment of the Health Promoter classification to the responding union's bargaining unit, avoiding seniority and administrative issues.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a security guard, refused to work her night shift at an old post office, citing fears for her safety due to isolation, cold, lack of water, and potential intruders.

The responding party employer dismissed her for refusing the assignment.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant had a bona fide belief that the workplace was likely to endanger her, satisfying the subjective test under section 43 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The employer failed to properly investigate her concerns with her participation as required by the Act.

The Board concluded the dismissal was a reprisal in violation of section 50(1) and ordered reinstatement with compensation.

The union applied to certify a bargaining unit of security officers and to combine it with an existing full-time bargaining unit.

The employer argued that section 6(6) of the Labour Relations Act precluded the combination because the security officers monitored other employees, creating a conflict of interest.

The Board agreed, finding that the statutory requirement for a separate guards unit under section 6(6) could not be circumvented by a combination application.

The certification was granted for a separate unit, but the combination application was dismissed.

The applicant union sought interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to prohibit the employer from relocating planing mill operations to a sawmill facility, or alternatively, an order assigning the planing work to its members pending the disposition of related unfair labour practice and work assignment complaints.

The employer planned to consolidate operations, taking the position that the relocated work would fall under the respondent union's collective agreement.

The Board found an arguable case for the work assignment but concluded the balance of harm did not favour granting interim relief, as the applicant did not challenge the employer's right to transfer operations and a temporary reassignment of work would cause equal prejudice to the respondent union.

The application for interim relief was dismissed.

The union applied to combine two bargaining units of front-of-house movie theatre employees located in Toronto and Ottawa into a single unit under section 7 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer opposed the combination, arguing that the geographic and administrative disparity meant combination would not reduce fragmentation and would cause serious labour relations problems.

The Board found that combining the units would reduce fragmentation and facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining without causing serious labour relations problems, and ordered the combination.

One Board Member dissented, expressing concern over the efficacy of combining units in Toronto and Ottawa.