P. V. Grasso

The union alleged that the employer violated section 73.1(6) of the Labour Relations Act by using non-managerial replacement workers from another place of operations to perform the work of striking employees.

The employer argued that its entire service area constituted a single integrated place of operations.

The Board agreed with the employer, finding that the various work sites, including the headquarters, field locations, and generating stations, were operationally linked and not sufficiently distinct to constitute separate places of operations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union sought interim relief to revoke a new scheduling system implemented by the responding employer, which reduced the hours of part-time Registered Practical Nurses.

The union alleged the changes targeted its key supporters and violated the statutory freeze during first collective agreement negotiations.

The majority of the Board granted the interim relief, finding an arguable case of an unfair labour practice and that the balance of labour relations harm favoured the union, as the changes altered the point of departure for collective bargaining and could cause significant representation harm.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the application due to the union's delay in seeking relief.

The applicant union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the employer interfered with its organizing campaign through bulletins, warnings to organizers, and the announcement of wage and benefit increases.

The Board found that the employer violated sections 65 and 67 of the Labour Relations Act by issuing coercive bulletins, arbitrarily enforcing a no-solicitation rule against organizers, and announcing benefits in a manner that constituted undue influence.

However, the Board declined to grant certification without a vote under section 9.2, concluding that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained through a representation vote following extensive remedial orders, including the posting of notices and union access to the workplace.

The applicant trade union alleged that the responding employer violated section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act by using replacement workers during a lawful strike.

The employer challenged whether the strike was authorized by a secret ballot vote as required by section 74(4).

The Board found that the strike vote was conducted in an open manner where union officials and other employees could observe how ballots were marked.

Consequently, the strike vote did not meet the statutory requirement for a secret ballot, meaning the replacement worker prohibitions in section 73.1 did not apply.

The application and a subsequent request for reconsideration were dismissed.

The applicant employer sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to restrict picketing at one of its stores by striking employees from other locations.

The employer argued the picketing breached the common law and caused undue disruption.

The majority of the Board dismissed the application, finding that the balance of harm favoured the union, given the delay in bringing the application, the imminent conclusion of the main hearing, and the significant impact an interim order would have on the employees' statutory right to picket.

A dissenting member would have granted the interim relief.

The applicant union sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to postpone the hospital's implementation of alternative placement and layoff notices affecting registered practical nurses.

The union alleged the hospital's actions were motivated by anti-union animus and intended to decimate the newly certified bargaining unit during first collective agreement negotiations.

The Board found the union had an arguable case and that the balance of harm favoured granting the interim relief, as the union's position was precarious after three years without a collective agreement.

The Board directed the hospital to restore and maintain the status quo pending the expedited hearing of the main complaint.

The applicant union applied under section 7 of the Labour Relations Act to combine seven separate bargaining units of front-of-house employees at various movie theatres operated by the responding party in Ontario.

The employer opposed the application, arguing that the union should have requested combination at the time of certification and that geographically separate units should remain distinct.

The Board granted the application, finding that combining the units would reduce fragmentation and facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining without causing serious labour relations problems.

A dissenting opinion would have kept the Guelph and Sudbury locations as separate units to allow for more local decision-making.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of hostel employees employed by the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

The intervener union argued the application should be dismissed because the applicant's constitution restricted membership to employees of the Crown, its agencies, or private employers, rendering municipal employees ineligible.

The Board found that the municipality was a public sector employer and not a 'private employer' within the meaning of the applicant's constitution.

As the applicant lacked an established practice of admitting persons outside its constitutional eligibility requirements, the application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant union applied to certify a bargaining unit of 17 security officers and to combine it with an existing full-time bargaining unit of approximately 6,000 employees.

The employer opposed the combination, arguing that under section 6(6) of the Labour Relations Act, the security officers' duties of monitoring other employees would give rise to a conflict of interest if they were included in the same unit.

The Board heard evidence regarding the security officers' duties, which included monitoring access, conducting investigations, and preparing reports that could lead to discipline.

The Board concluded that the monitoring duties raised a real possibility of a conflict of interest, satisfying the test under section 6(6), and remitted the matters back to the parties.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by prohibiting editorial employees from wearing union buttons while meeting with the public on company business.

The Board found that wearing union buttons to support collective bargaining objectives is a lawful union activity protected by the Act.

The Board concluded that the employer's rule was inconsistently applied and motivated, at least in part, by an anti-union animus, thereby violating sections 65 and 67 of the Act.

A declaration of the violation was issued, though no further remedy was ordered.

The union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the employer laid off the grievor out of seniority order.

The employer argued that the grievor had lost his seniority when he failed to return to work following a telephone recall, and that the union was estopped from relying on the collective agreement's requirement for written notice by registered mail because it had acquiesced to telephone recalls in the past.

The Board found no estoppel, as the union had never agreed that employees could be stripped of seniority for failing to respond to a telephone recall.

Applying the strict language of the collective agreement, the Board held that the employer breached the agreement by removing the grievor's seniority without sending written notice by registered mail.

The Board directed that the grievor be reinstated with full seniority and compensated for lost income.

The applicant union sought interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, requesting an order that the responding party employer re-open a logging camp that had recently been closed.

The union alleged the employer failed to disclose the impending closure during collective bargaining.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the balance of harm strongly favoured the employer.

The harm alleged by the union was primarily financial and could be remedied if the main application succeeded.

Furthermore, the union failed to act promptly, waiting until after the camp had closed and equipment had been moved before filing the application.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the Town of Bothwell.

The responding party employer argued that the Deputy Treasurer and the Works Supervisor should be excluded from the bargaining unit under section 1(3) of the Labour Relations Act because they exercised managerial functions or were employed in a confidential capacity.

The Board reviewed the evidence and found that neither individual exercised sufficient independent decision-making authority or had regular, material involvement in confidential labour relations matters to warrant exclusion.

Both individuals were found to be employees for the purposes of the Act, and a certificate was issued to the applicant.

The employer applied for a work assignment direction regarding the classification of Health Promoter.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) and the Association of Allied Health Professionals: Ontario (AAHPO) both claimed jurisdiction over the work.

The Board directed that if the employer elects to use a nurse to fill a Health Promoter position, the position must be included in the ONA bargaining unit, but if it elects to use someone who is not a nurse, the position must be included in the AAHPO bargaining unit.

The applicant union sought a single employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act following the closure of a unionized warehouse and the transfer of its work to a newly consolidated, non-unionized warehouse operated by a related corporate entity.

The responding parties conceded they carried on related activities under common control but argued against the declaration on the basis of employee wishes and corporate reorganization.

The Board granted the declaration, finding that the corporate reorganization incidentally undermined established bargaining rights and that the employer could not rely on the situation it created to deny the declaration.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of registered and graduate nurses.

The employer argued that the Occupational Health Nurse should be excluded from the bargaining unit on the basis that she exercised managerial functions and was employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations under section 1(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the nurse's duties, which included assessing fitness to return to work, completing workers' compensation forms, and limited involvement in discipline and hiring, were based on her professional expertise and did not constitute managerial functions.

The Board also found insufficient evidence of regular and material involvement in confidential labour relations matters.

The Board declared the nurse to be an employee and issued a final certificate.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of municipal inside workers.

The responding party employer disputed the employee status of ten individuals, arguing they exercised managerial functions or were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations under section 1(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that only the Records Management Coordinator was excluded due to her regular involvement with confidential labour relations information.

The remaining nine individuals, including planners, inspectors, and secretarial staff, were found to be employees within the meaning of the Act, as their access to confidential information or exercise of managerial authority was irregular or insufficient to warrant exclusion.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a site-specific bargaining unit of employees at a single movie theatre complex.

The responding party employer argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should encompass multiple theatres in the Metropolitan Toronto area to avoid fragmentation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the site-specific bargaining unit was appropriate for collective bargaining, consistent with previous Board decisions.

As the union demonstrated support from more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the unit, the Board ordered that a certificate issue.

The applicant union sought an interim order under section 92.1(1) of the Labour Relations Act to prohibit the employer and the union from engaging in economic sanctions, including strikes and lock-outs, pending the disposition of an application under section 7 to combine two bargaining units.

The parties were in a legal strike/lock-out position for the "outside unit", while the "office unit" had already ratified a tentative agreement.

The Board dismissed the request for an interim order, finding that the actions sought to be prohibited were lawful under the Act.

The Board concluded that the potential harm of not granting the order was outweighed by the unusual and intrusive effect such an order would have on the established collective bargaining process.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer terminated three employees due to anti-union animus during an organizing campaign.

The union also sought certification without a vote under section 9.2 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the employer's stated reasons for the terminations were pretextual and that the decisions were motivated by a belief that the employees supported the union.

Given the employer's serious violations, including interrogating employees and terminating union supporters, the Board concluded that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the employees with compensation and certified the union.