P. V. Grasso

The complainant, a robotics supervisor, left the plant during his shift because he believed the employer's plan to repair gates on robotic cells while production was running was unsafe and violated lockout procedures.

The employer subsequently refused to allow him to return to work, claiming he had quit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the complainant did not quit and that the employer failed to discharge its burden under section 24(5) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act to prove that its refusal to continue his employment was not motivated, at least in part, by his efforts to enforce the Act.

The Board ordered the employer to compensate the complainant for his lost wages.

The complainant filed a reprisal complaint under section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act against his supervisor and employer, alleging he was discharged for raising health and safety concerns.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the complainant had already grieved his discharge and the matter had been dealt with by a board of arbitration.

The Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding that the complainant had elected to have the matter dealt with by arbitration under the collective agreement, and therefore the Board had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant union alleged that the employer committed an unfair labour practice by issuing written communications to employees during collective bargaining.

The union argued that the employer was attempting to bargain directly with employees and undermine the union's exclusive bargaining rights.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer's communications were accurate, did not disparage the union, and were permissible exercises of the employer's freedom of expression under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board concluded that the employer was merely explaining its bargaining position and not attempting to negotiate directly with the employees.

The Carpenters' union filed unfair labour practice complaints against the Labourers' union and various employers, challenging subcontracting clauses in residential framing collective agreements.

The respondents moved to dismiss the complaints due to delay and abuse of process.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the Carpenters had delayed excessively in prosecuting the complaints, causing substantial prejudice to the respondents and striking at the heart of established bargaining relationships.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 89(4) of the Labour Relations Act to decline to inquire into the complaints and dismissed them.

The intervener, Local 293, requested reconsideration of a Board decision directing that the name of Local 1230-10 appear on a pre-hearing representation vote ballot instead of Local 293.

Local 293 argued it was the incumbent union and that an agreement existed to place its name on the ballot.

The Board dismissed the request, noting that pre-hearing votes are designed to be expeditious and that holding a hearing prior to the vote would defeat this purpose.

The Board concluded that the applicant's position regarding the ballot structure should be favoured given the risks involved, and that the successor rights dispute between the locals would be determined after the vote.

The applicant employer referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking to recover approximately $14,000 in room and board allowances allegedly improperly paid to a former employee.

The respondent union raised preliminary objections, including that the grievance was untimely.

The Board found that the employer had delayed considerably in filing the grievance, having first pursued criminal charges and civil litigation before turning to arbitration.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion under section 44(6) of the Act to extend the time limits, upholding the union's preliminary objection and dismissing the application.

The applicant union sought a declaration that Stucor Construction Ltd. was bound to the Operating Engineers Provincial Agreement as a result of a sale of a business from Stewart & Hinan Contractors Limited, or alternatively, that the entities were related employers.

The predecessor business was liquidated when one partner retired, and the remaining partner started a new, smaller general contracting business (Stucor) using some of the predecessor's assets, key management personnel, and its name.

The Board found that the transfer of management skills, expertise, and some physical assets constituted a sale of part of a business within the meaning of section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

Stucor was declared bound by the collective agreement.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent occasional teachers employed by the respondent school board.

The respondent argued that the occasional teachers were already covered by a subsisting collective agreement through voluntary recognition, pointing to a personnel manual incorporated into the agreement.

The Board rejected this argument, finding that the collective agreement and relevant legislation clearly excluded occasional teachers, and the personnel manual did not constitute a valid voluntary recognition agreement.

The Board found the proposed bargaining unit appropriate and, based on the results of a pre-hearing representation vote, granted certification to the applicant.

The applicants, employees of Fern Brand Waxes Ltd., applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union challenged the termination petition because 12 of the 22 signatures consisted of only first or last names, arguing this did not meet the formal requirements of the Board's Rule 73.

The Board found that the employees clearly intended the incomplete signatures to represent their names and that the petition was signed knowingly and voluntarily.

The Board accepted the petition and ordered a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, finding the incomplete signatures invalid.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent the employees of the respondent trucking company.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing its operations extended beyond Ontario and fell under federal jurisdiction.

The Board found that the respondent, an unlicensed carrier hauling exclusively for a single manufacturer using leased trucks bearing the manufacturer's name, was not an independent inter-provincial trucking operation but an integrated delivery arm of the manufacturing concern.

Consequently, the operations fell within provincial jurisdiction.

Finding that the union had the requisite membership support, the Board issued a certificate.

In an application for certification, an intervener union filed its own application for certification.

The Board considered whether employees must be given notice of the intervener's application.

Both the applicant and intervener opposed giving notice, arguing that a vote was likely and employee petitions would be irrelevant.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that employees have a right to participate in certification proceedings and must be given meaningful notice of a second application.

The Board directed the employer to post notices of the intervener's application.

The complainant filed a complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging he was terminated for raising safety concerns.

The union had already filed a grievance on his behalf and proceeded to schedule an arbitration hearing.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the Board complaint, arguing the complainant had elected the arbitration route under section 24(2) of the Act.

The Board agreed, finding that by allowing the union to proceed to the point of scheduling an arbitration hearing without objection, the complainant had elected arbitration and could not pursue the same matter before the Board.

The complaint was dismissed.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated the statutory freeze period and interfered with the union's administration by unilaterally reducing employee hours and dealing directly with employees.

The employer, a newly acquired nursing home, implemented staffing changes resulting in reduced hours for several employees without the union's consent.

The Board found that the collective agreement did not give the employer the right to unilaterally establish new normal hours of work.

The Board held that the employer violated the statutory freeze and interfered with the union by bypassing it to deal directly with employees.

The employer was ordered to compensate affected employees.

The complainants, employees of The T. Eaton Company Limited, alleged that the respondent union violated the Labour Relations Act by failing to hold a ratification vote before accepting a collective agreement.

The union, facing a prolonged strike and the potential loss of bargaining rights, had its International President ratify the agreement after conducting a back-to-work vote among striking employees only.

The Board found that the union did not act in bad faith or violate its duty of fair representation, as it was not legally obligated to hold a ratification vote and acted to protect its bargaining rights.

The complaints were dismissed.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The union had requested conciliation for a 1984-1985 collective agreement, but the employer objected, arguing that the union failed to give timely notice to bargain under the 1983-1984 agreement, resulting in its automatic renewal.

The Board found that the union's late notice, given months after the agreement's expiry, did not constitute valid notice under section 53(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

Consequently, the collective agreement was automatically renewed, and the Minister lacked the authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The respondent employers and the union agreed to a related employer declaration.

A group of employees filed a statement of desire after the terminal date, requesting an extension because the employer's bookkeeper had mistakenly altered the terminal date on the posted Board notice.

The Board refused to extend the terminal date, finding that the employees had adequate notice of the original date before the unauthorized alteration was made.

As the union had membership support from more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit on the terminal date, the Board granted certification.

The applicant brought an application under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act seeking a declaration that it is under the direction and control of the Crown in Right of Ontario and that they are related employers.

The Crown challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the Labour Relations Act does not bind the Crown pursuant to section 11 of the Interpretation Act.

The Board agreed, finding that the Labour Relations Act is not binding on the Crown.

The Board concluded it had no jurisdiction to find the Crown to be a related employer or bound by a collective agreement, and terminated the proceedings.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act and subsequently sought to add related employer and sale of business applications under sections 1(4) and 63 by way of letter.

The respondents did not attend the hearing.

The Board adjourned the section 1(4) and section 63 applications, finding that the applicant's failure to file the proper forms meant that the required formal notices had not been given to the respondents or their employees.