P. V. Grasso

The union applied for an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to compel the employer to recognize and deal with its bargaining unit chairperson, who had been terminated, during negotiations for an adjustment plan related to an impending plant closure.

The employer had refused to meet with any bargaining committee that included the terminated chairperson.

The Board found the union had an arguable case in its main unfair labour practice complaint and that the balance of harm favoured granting the interim relief.

The Board ordered the employer to cease refusing to recognize the chairperson and to meet with the union's committee to bargain in good faith.

The applicant union sought certification for employees of two responding employers engaged in decommissioning uranium mines in Elliot Lake.

The employers argued that their operations fell under federal jurisdiction pursuant to the Canada Labour Code and the Atomic Energy Control Act, as the work involved uranium mines.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied a functional test and determined that decommissioning a mine is analogous to demolition in the construction industry and is not an integral part of operating a federal undertaking.

The Board concluded that the labour relations of the employers fell within provincial jurisdiction and granted the applications for certification.

The union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of employees at Hornco Plastics Inc.'s Whitby plant.

The responding parties argued that Hornco and Horn Plastics Ltd. should be treated as a single employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, and that the appropriate bargaining unit should encompass both the Whitby plant and Horn's Pickering plant.

The Board found that the two plants were highly integrated, with a single payroll, shared management, and significant employee interchange.

The Board exercised its discretion to declare the companies a single employer and found the broader two-plant unit to be appropriate to avoid serious labour relations problems.

As the union had less than forty percent membership support in the broader unit, the application for certification was dismissed.

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

The employers brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application, arguing that section 73.1, which came into force on January 1, 1993, did not apply because the strike and the hiring of replacement workers occurred prior to its enactment.

The majority of the Board dismissed the motion, finding that section 73.1 is not retroactive but applies prospectively to the ongoing status of a strike, prohibiting the continued use of replacement workers after the statutory preconditions are met.

The presumption against retrospectivity did not apply.

The union applied for certification to represent employees of a company engaged in ship maintenance and repair.

The company challenged the Ontario Labour Relations Board's constitutional jurisdiction, arguing its activities were integral to shipping and thus fell under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Board found that the overwhelming majority of the company's ship repairs were performed while ships were docked over the winter months, lacking the necessary operational integration with the core federal shipping undertakings.

The Board concluded the company's operations fell within provincial jurisdiction and granted the certification.

The applicant union alleged that the responding school board violated the statutory freeze provision under section 81 of the Labour Relations Act by altering the wages and benefits of occasional teachers following certification.

The school board argued that the teachers in question were probationary, not occasional, and thus not covered by the freeze.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the teachers were occasional teachers within the meaning of the Education Act and the collective agreement.

The Board declared that the school board violated the statutory freeze by altering their terms and conditions of employment and ordered full compensation.

The Operative Plasterers' and Cement Masons' International Association, Local 598 requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision that dismissed its unfair labour practice complaint against Metro Concrete Floors and determined voter eligibility in a certification application by the Labourers' International Union, Local 506.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no obvious error, no new evidence, and that Local 598 had a full opportunity to make representations at the original hearing.

The Board also declined to apply a new voter eligibility practice retroactively to a case where the vote had already been taken.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to displace the intervener union as the bargaining agent for the respondent's employees.

The intervener objected, arguing the application was untimely because a collective agreement was already in effect between it and the respondent.

The Board found that while the intervener and respondent had settled many issues following a strike, several significant matters remained unresolved and no final collective agreement had been reached.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the timeliness objection and directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant union applied under section 41 of the Labour Relations Act for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The parties had engaged in extensive bargaining over many months, culminating in a strike.

A major point of impasse was the employer's insistence on a discretionary 'pay for performance' wage system, which the union rejected in favour of a wage grid.

The Board found that the collective bargaining process had been unsuccessful and that the parties were in a 'logjam' from which they were unlikely to extricate themselves.

Without attributing fault, the Board exercised its discretion under section 41(2)(d) to direct the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer changed the grievor's shift and issued him written instructions because of his union activities and frequent grievances.

The employer maintained that the shift change was necessitated by the unexpected resignation of a registered technologist, requiring the grievor to be moved to a shift with adequate technical supervision as mandated by the Ministry of Health.

The Board found the employer's witnesses credible and concluded that the actions were motivated by bona fide operational considerations, not anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union sought certification and won a representation vote.

The respondent employer and a group of objecting employees alleged that the union engaged in intimidation and coercion during the vote, including holding a meeting at a Sikh Temple, making religious appeals, and congregating outside the polling area.

The Board found that while union supporters did congregate and electioneer outside the voting area, the evidence did not establish that their conduct was intimidatory, coercive, or destructive of the employees' freedom of choice.

The Board declined to set aside the vote and ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The Association of Allied Health Professionals applied for certification to represent paramedical employees of the Perth District Health Unit.

The employer and the intervener (CUPE) argued that a recent agreement between them to include the disputed classifications in CUPE's existing bargaining unit acted as a bar to the application.

The Board found that the agreement, which arose in the context of a section 106(2) application, did not have retroactive effect and could not bar the certification application.

The Board determined the proposed bargaining unit was appropriate and, finding that more than 55% of the employees were members of the applicant, directed that a certificate issue.

During a union certification proceeding, the respondent employer sought consent under Rule 72(4) of the Board's Rules of Procedure to adduce evidence of alleged intimidation by a union organizer.

The alleged incidents occurred prior to a representation vote but were not raised by the respondent within the time limits prescribed by the Board's rules.

The Board denied the request, emphasizing the need for expedition in labour relations matters and finding that the respondent had not acted with due diligence in raising the allegations.

The applicant union applied for certification and sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, arguing that Excavating and Lawrence Construction were under common control and direction.

The respondents objected, arguing that section 1(4) could not be used to acquire bargaining rights where none previously existed.

The Board ruled that it had jurisdiction to make a related employer declaration in the context of a certification application.

Finding that the two entities were associated businesses under common control, the Board declared them a single employer and issued certificates to the applicant.

The applicant union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The parties had resolved all issues except for a subcontracting provision.

During bargaining, the respondent municipality stated it did not intend to hire members of the applicant union, as it felt obligated to assign the work to its own employees represented by another union (CUPE).

The Board found that the municipality's approach, combined with its refusal to agree to a subcontracting provision, constituted a refusal to recognize the bargaining authority of the applicant union.

The Board directed that the first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of carpenters engaged in the installation of exterior cladding systems.

The respondent employer argued for a broader unit of all carpenters and carpenters' apprentices.

The Board ruled that in the construction industry, a craft union must seek to represent all members of its craft employed by the respondent, and therefore rejected the applicant's restricted description.

The Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and appointed an officer to inquire into the employment status of certain individuals characterized by the respondent as independent contractors.

The applicant union filed a grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act alleging that the respondent employer improperly assigned the assembly of a metal meter shed to a mixed crew of carpenters and labourers instead of sheet metal workers.

The intervener union argued that the work was properly assigned based on established practice.

The Board determined that the matter was essentially a jurisdictional dispute that should be dealt with under section 91 of the Act to allow all interested parties, including the unrepresented labourers' union, to participate.

The Board adjourned the section 124 application for 30 days to permit the filing of a jurisdictional dispute.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Two employees filed a petition objecting to the certification and requested an extension of the terminal date, arguing that the Notice to Employees had not been posted for an adequate period.

The Board found that the notice had been posted for 2.5 days prior to the terminal date, which was sufficient time for the objecting employees to file their petition.

As no employees were shown to be prejudiced by the posting period, the Board declined to extend the terminal date and granted the certificate.

The Ontario Nurses' Association filed applications under sections 1(4) and 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act, along with an unfair labour practice complaint under section 89, against Carecor Health Services Inc. and numerous hospitals.

The union alleged that the hospitals formed Carecor to provide a pool of agency nurses to avoid their collective agreement obligations.

The Board dismissed the allegations under sections 50 and 66 for failing to disclose a prima facie case, but allowed the section 64 complaint to proceed.

The Board directed the union to provide particulars of its allegations and ordered that the section 1(4) application and the remaining section 89 complaint be heard together.

The section 106(2) application was adjourned pending the disposition of the other matters.

The union grieved the discharge of an employee who was terminated after failing to report for work and failing to notify the employer of his absence.

The employer relied on this failure as a culminating incident, pointing to the employee's prior disciplinary record, which included warnings and suspensions for attendance issues, insubordination, and driving a company vehicle with a suspended license.

The Board found that the failure to notify warranted some discipline and constituted a culminating incident.

However, considering the employee's length of service and the fact that he was not previously on the verge of termination, the Board concluded that discharge was excessive.

The Board substituted a 10-day suspension and ordered the employee reinstated with compensation.