P. V. Grasso

The parties requested a last-minute adjournment of a scheduled hearing on consent.

The Board granted the adjournment sine die for a period not to exceed one year, but issued a strong warning to the parties and counsel about the squandering of the Board's limited resources caused by late adjournment requests.

The union brought an application for a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act and an unfair labour practice complaint under section 89.

The union alleged that the employer's purchase of a non-unionized plant, transfer of work, and subsequent layoff of bargaining unit employees were motivated by anti-union animus.

The Board found that the employer's actions were motivated by bona fide business reasons, including the declining market and obsolete equipment at the unionized plant.

The unfair labour practice complaint was dismissed.

The Board granted the related employer declaration on consent but declined to extend the geographic scope of the collective agreement to the non-unionized plant.

The applicant unions sought declarations under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that a sale of a business had occurred between K & Z Construction Ltd. and Yola Construction Ltd., or alternatively, that the two companies were related employers under common control or direction.

K & Z had ceased operations due to financial difficulties, and one of its owners subsequently became a part-owner of Yola, an existing business.

The Board dismissed the section 63 application, finding no transfer of a functional economic vehicle.

The Board also declined to exercise its discretion to make a related employer declaration under section 1(4), concluding that doing so would inappropriately extend rather than preserve the unions' bargaining rights, as the new owner brought no meaningful part of K & Z's business to Yola.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer terminated several employees for their union organizing activities.

The Board found that the employer's reasons for the terminations were a pretext to cloak anti-union animus, violating sections 64, 66, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

Given the severity of the employer's misconduct at the inception of the organizing campaign, the Board concluded that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained in a representation vote.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 8 of the Act to certify the union without a vote, finding it had adequate membership support for collective bargaining.

The applicant trade union alleged that a sale of a business occurred between ComDev and Senstar Corporation, and sought a declaration that Senstar was bound by the existing collective agreement.

Senstar argued that only assets were transferred, that the union's geographic scope did not cover Senstar's location, and that the union's constitution did not permit Senstar employees to join.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the transfer of patents, technical expertise, customer lists, and goodwill constituted a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also interpreted the collective agreement's geographic scope liberally to include Senstar's location and found the union's constitutional amendment valid.

A representation vote was ordered due to the intermingling of employees.

In a union certification application, a pre-hearing representation vote resulted in only one eligible ballot being cast.

The employee who cast the ballot wrote to the Board requesting that it not be opened, fearing retaliation from the union or the employer since his vote would not be secret.

The Board declined to depart from its previous decisions ordering the ballot to be counted, noting that a voter cannot withdraw a ballot once cast.

The Board emphasized that the Labour Relations Act provides ample protection against retaliatory action for participating in Board proceedings and directed the Registrar to count the ballot.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and initially proposed a bargaining unit that excluded group leaders.

At the hearing, the parties agreed to amend the bargaining unit to include group leaders.

The applicant argued the Board should proceed without giving further notice to the group leaders.

The Board held that the group leaders were entitled to notice as their legal rights could be affected by the application.

The Board directed that a new Notice to Employees be posted and extended the terminal date.

In an application for certification, a pre-hearing representation vote was held in which only one person was eligible to vote and cast a ballot.

The applicant trade union requested that the ballot not be counted to preserve the secrecy of the vote, and that a new vote be held.

The respondent employer agreed the ballot should not be counted but argued the application should be dismissed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the mere fact that only one person was eligible to vote or cast a ballot does not invalidate a representation vote.

The Board concluded that while secrecy of the ballot is important, it should not take precedence over the right of employees to choose whether to be represented by a trade union.

The Board directed that the ballot box be unsealed and the single ballot counted.

The applicant union brought an application alleging a sale of business from Ameri-Cana Motel Limited to a numbered company, seeking to bind the numbered company to the provincial collective agreement.

The respondents argued the union had abandoned its bargaining rights, which were originally obtained by certification in 1972.

The Board found that the union failed to take reasonable steps to monitor the employer's construction activities between 1973 and 1977, despite the employer operating from a fixed location where ongoing construction was visible.

Consequently, the Board concluded the union had abandoned its bargaining rights prior to the advent of province-wide bargaining in 1978, and dismissed the application.

The applicant union sought to convert its application for certification from one requesting a pre-hearing representation vote to a regular application.

The Board denied the request, finding that an applicant must make its choice at the time of filing and cannot later resile from it without consent or extraordinary circumstances.

The Board also dismissed the applicant's unfair labour practice complaint, finding that the respondent employer's transfer of two employees out of the bargaining unit was done in the normal course of operations and was not motivated by anti-union animus.

Consequently, the transferred employees were not entitled to vote in the pre-hearing representation vote.

The applicant, an employee, brought three applications under section 57 of the Labour Relations Act to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent unions for three bargaining units at the intervener's store.

The unions challenged the voluntariness of the petitions, arguing that the labour relations environment was turbulent, the evidence of circulation was deficient, and a key supporter of the petitions was perceived as acting on behalf of management.

The Board found that the labour relations background did not thwart free expression and that the petitions were circulated voluntarily.

The Board also concluded that the key supporter, a head cashier, did not exercise managerial functions and would not have been perceived by employees as acting for management.

Furthermore, the Board held that the applicant was competent to bring the applications for all three units.

The Board directed that representation votes be taken.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the applications, finding that the key supporter was perceived as an arm of management.

The complainant union (IAM) filed a jurisdictional dispute regarding the assignment of maintenance work on 16 systems at the employer's mill to the respondent union (IBEW).

The IAM argued that the work, which involved electronic instrumentation, fell within its jurisdiction due to technological changes from pneumatic and hydraulic systems.

After the IAM completed its case, the IBEW brought a motion for non-suit.

The Board reviewed the evidence and the collective agreements, finding that the IAM's agreement covered pneumatic, hydraulic, and fluidic instrumentation, while the IBEW's agreement covered electronic instrumentation.

The Board concluded that the IAM failed to establish a prima facie case that the work was improperly assigned, granted the non-suit motion, and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The respondent employer requested a hearing, arguing inadequate time to respond and questioning the appropriateness of the bargaining unit and union support.

The Board denied the request for a hearing, finding the materials filed sufficient to dispose of the application.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit and found that more than fifty-five per cent of the employees in the unit were members of the applicant.

Certificates were issued to the applicant.

The applicant union applied for a declaration under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act that it was the successor to the Melnor Manufacturing Ltd. (Brantford) Shop Union following a merger.

The respondent employer argued that the predecessor union's constitution did not permit a merger without unanimous consent, relying on the common law principles in Astgen v. Smith.

The Board rejected this argument, finding that the predecessor union had validly amended its constitution to permit the merger by a majority vote, and that the statutory framework of the Labour Relations Act supersedes the common law requirements for unanimous consent.

The Board granted the declaration of successor rights.

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints and a related employer application under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act after Metropolitan Life Insurance Company contracted out its cleaning services to Allen Maintenance Ltd. The union alleged that the contracting out was motivated by anti-union animus, that Metropolitan failed to disclose the decision during collective bargaining, and that Metropolitan and Allen were related employers or that Metropolitan remained the true employer.

The Board dismissed the applications, finding that the contracting out was a bona fide business decision, that no de facto decision had been made during bargaining that would trigger a duty to disclose, and that Allen was an independent contractor exercising fundamental control over its employees without common control or direction from Metropolitan.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Widcor Limited and Green-King Ltd. constitute a single employer.

Widcor, a developer bound by the union's provincial ICI collective agreement, wound down its construction operations and engaged Green-King, a company reactivated by Widcor's former construction manager, to build a car dealership.

The Board found that the two entities carried on related activities and were under common direction or control due to the former manager's continued use of Widcor's organizational structure and Widcor's intimate involvement in the project.

The Board exercised its discretion to issue a common employer declaration, but limited its application to instances where the two companies together engage in the construction industry.

In an application for certification in the construction industry, the Board determined the composition of the bargaining unit by resolving disputes over whether certain individuals were performing bargaining unit work or exercised managerial functions under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that some working foremen exercised managerial functions and were excluded, while others did not and were included.

The Board directed the matter to be listed for a continuation of hearing to address the origination and circulation of documents filed in opposition to the application.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer.

During the union's organizing campaign, the employer announced new benefits, supported the formation of an in-plant employee committee, held captive audience meetings where the general manager claimed he was 'stabbed in the back', supported an anti-union petition, and failed to recall a union supporter from lay-off.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer committed multiple violations of sections 64, 66, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

Given the cumulative effect of these unfair labour practices, the Board concluded that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained in a representation vote.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 8 of the Act to certify the union without a vote and ordered remedial measures, including a posting and compensation for the un-recalled employee.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent carpenters and carpenters' apprentices employed by the respondents.

The respondents and interveners argued that the employees were already covered by existing collective agreements (the MTABA Agreement and the Ellis-Don Agreement) and that the applicant should not be permitted to carve out its craft from the existing bargaining units.

The Board found that the MTABA and Ellis-Don Agreements did not cover carpenters or carpenters' apprentices, denying status to the MTABA and limiting the status of Local 183.

The Board further held that, consistent with the craft-oriented nature of the construction industry and the provisions of the Labour Relations Act, the applicant was permitted to carve out its craft from the existing Form Work style agreement.

The Board defined the appropriate bargaining units and directed further hearings for the remaining issues.

The complainant alleged under section 85(2) of the Labour Relations Act that the union's audited financial statements were inadequate because they were prepared by a Certified General Accountant (C.G.A.) rather than a Chartered Accountant, and lacked sufficient detail.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the Act does not require an audit to be performed by a Chartered Accountant.

The Board accepted the uncontradicted evidence that the statements were prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and that a proper audit was conducted.