R. 0. MacDowell

The employer and intervener union sought reconsideration of a Board decision that excluded an employee on long-term disability from the voter list in a certification application.

They argued the exclusion violated the Charter and the Human Rights Code.

The Board dismissed the request, affirming its bright-line test for construction industry certifications, which requires employees to be actively at work on the application date.

The Board found no discrimination, as all absent employees are treated equally regardless of the reason for their absence, and the employee in question had no reasonable prospect of returning to work.

The applicant employer, Progistix, sought a cease and desist order against its employees and their union, the CEP, alleging an unlawful strike.

The employees had delayed crossing a picket line set up by striking Bell Canada employees (also represented by the CEP) at their shared premises.

The Board found that the concerted delay in crossing the picket line constituted an unlawful strike under the Labour Relations Act, and that the union and its officials had unlawfully authorized and encouraged this action.

The Board issued a cease and desist order against the employees and the union, but declined to restrict the picketing itself, finding it was in connection with a lawful strike against Bell Canada.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) requested reconsideration of an earlier Board decision that established broadly-based municipal bargaining units for the newly amalgamated City of Toronto, which included nurses.

ONA sought a separate bargaining unit for nurses.

The Board dismissed the request, noting the need for expedition under Bill 136, the fact that the major parties had already reached a tentative global settlement based on the earlier decision, and that the earlier decision appropriately continued the historical pattern of mixed units from the predecessor municipalities.

The union filed a grievance and an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that local employers and the Mechanical Contractors Association of Windsor (MCAW) breached the provincial collective agreement and the Labour Relations Act by refusing to implement provincially-negotiated changes to a local pension and welfare benefit plan.

The MCAW argued that the plan pre-dated provincial bargaining, operated outside the collective agreement, and that the Board should defer to the Courts or the plan's trust dispute mechanism.

The Board declined to defer, finding that the dispute engaged its exclusive jurisdiction over the statutory scheme and its role as the designated arbitrator for construction industry collective agreements.

The Board directed that the matters be listed for a hearing on the merits.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a bottom-line decision regarding the restructuring of bargaining units at the newly amalgamated City of Kingston under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The Board directed the preservation of the ONA nurses' unit and a separate utilities unit represented by the IBEW.

Transit workers represented by the CAW were folded into a broader all-employee unit proposed by CUPE.

The Board also defined the firefighters' unit and directed the parties to finalize the remaining bargaining unit descriptions with the assistance of a Board Officer.

The Canadian Health Care Workers (CHCW) filed a certification application to displace the incumbent union, SEIU, for service employees at Parkwood Hospital and McCormick Home.

Shortly after, SEIU filed an application under the newly enacted Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act (Bill 136), arguing that an ongoing restructuring transferring Parkwood to St. Joseph's Health Centre barred the certification application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that Bill 136 did not automatically bar the certification application and declined to exercise its discretion to apply Bill 136 retroactively to halt the proceeding.

The Board directed that the representation ballots be counted, treating the employees at the two facilities as separate voting constituencies.

The applicant local unions and their provincial conference sought an interim order to restrain a receiver appointed by the parent international union from interfering with ongoing proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicants had filed an application under section 154 of the Labour Relations Act to displace the parent union from the provincial bargaining designation, and an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the receivership was imposed without just cause to thwart local autonomy.

The Board granted the interim order, directing the parent union and its receiver to cease interfering with the Board proceedings and the upcoming provincial collective bargaining, finding that the statutory rights of the local unions to seek self-determination under the Act must be protected pending a final decision on the merits.

The parent union applied under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act for the Board's consent to extend its trusteeship over the local union for an additional six months.

The trusteeship was initially imposed due to serious financial and operational concerns, including significant debt, financial mismanagement, and internal political turmoil.

The Board found that the administrator had made reasonable, good-faith efforts to address these issues and that a minimum six-month extension was necessary to complete the restructuring and ensure a smooth return to local autonomy.

The application for extension was granted.

The Association of Major League Umpires filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the American and National Leagues and the Toronto Blue Jays, challenging a lock-out and the use of replacement umpires at games in Toronto.

The Leagues argued that their collective bargaining relationship was governed by American law and that Ontario law did not apply.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the Ontario Labour Relations Act applies to the umpires when they work in Toronto.

The Board declared that the lock-out and the use of replacement umpires in Ontario were unlawful because the parties had not completed the compulsory conciliation process required by the Act.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer discharged employees for joining the union.

The employer did not appear, relying on an ex parte Order obtained under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) which it claimed stayed the Board's proceedings.

The Board reserved its decision on whether the CCAA Order immunized the ongoing business from provincial employment legislation and the Labour Relations Act, noting the potential conflict with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Board directed its counsel to appear in Court the following day to seek clarification on the impact of the CCAA Order on the ongoing litigation.

The complainant filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the union regarding events from 1990-1991, including the negotiation of a severance package following a plant closure.

The complainant had previously filed and withdrawn similar complaints after the Board refused to hold the entire hearing in Thunder Bay.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act to dismiss the new complaint without a hearing, finding it to be vexatious, an abuse of process, and serving no useful labour relations purpose given that the local union and the plant no longer existed.

The applicant union brought complaints alleging that the City of Ottawa and concert promoters engaged in an illegal lock-out.

The City required promoters renting its facilities to use members of a rival union for stagehand work.

The applicant argued this arrangement unlawfully deprived its members of work opportunities and constituted a lock-out.

The Board found that the City, as a property owner, was not acting as an employer of the stagehands and had no intent to compel the applicant's members to forego statutory rights.

The promoters' refusal to hire the applicant's members was a response to commercial conditions imposed by the City, lacking the improper motivation required for a lock-out.

The complaints were dismissed.

The union applied for certification shortly after consenting to a termination of its bargaining rights due to a failure to give timely notice to bargain.

The employer argued the new application was an abuse of process and should be barred for six months under the Board's procedural powers.

The Board held that the application was timely under section 5 of the Labour Relations Act and that it lacked the discretion to impose a bar outside the specific circumstances of section 105(2)(i).

The Board prioritized the employees' desire for collective bargaining and certified the union without a representation vote.

The union applied for interim relief seeking the provisional reinstatement of two employees who were discharged during a union organizing campaign.

The union alleged the discharges were unfair labour practices intended to chill the campaign.

The employer claimed the discharges were for poor performance and theft.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the interim order, finding that the union established an arguable case and that the potential harm to the organizing campaign and other employees' rights outweighed any harm to the employer from temporarily reinstating the employees pending a full hearing.

The applicant union sought to certify a site-specific bargaining unit of employees at one of the employer's many locations in Metropolitan Toronto.

The employer argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should encompass all of its locations across the municipality due to the integrated nature of its operations and employee interchange.

The Board found that the single-location unit proposed by the union was not appropriate for collective bargaining, consistent with its prior jurisprudence regarding multi-location service enterprises.

The application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act alleging that an unknown employee placed a pair of women's panties in his mail bank.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, noting that it is not an investigatory agency and cannot proceed against unknown persons.

Furthermore, the Board found that the alleged conduct, even if true, did not establish a breach of the Act as there was no indication the applicant was exercising rights or engaging in activity protected by the Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board cancelled a scheduled hearing, determining that representations regarding the Officer's Report could be appropriately made and received in writing.

The Board set a schedule for the applicant to make written representations, followed by the responding party's response and the applicant's reply.

The applicant trade union applied for certification, initially characterizing the application as pertaining to the construction industry.

When it became apparent the employer was not in the construction industry, the union amended the bargaining unit description.

The employer argued the application date should be changed to the date of the amendment.

The Board rejected this argument, treating the initial characterization as a technical error and maintaining the original application date.

Finding that more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant, the Board issued a certificate.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer failed to bargain in good faith when its elected trustees refused to ratify a tentative collective agreement.

The employer argued that the settlement was expressly subject to ratification and that severe provincial funding cuts justified the trustees' decision to reject the settlement.

The Board found that the employer did not breach its duty to bargain in good faith, as the change in economic circumstances was real and compelling, and the employer was entitled to reconsider its bargaining position.

The complaint was dismissed, and the parties were directed to return to the bargaining table.

The applicant union, Local 75, brought an application under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act claiming that the business of the Skyline Triumph Hotel had been transferred to the responding parties, Accomodex and Kelloryn, who reopened it as a Howard Johnson Hotel.

The responding parties argued it was merely a transfer of idle assets following a closure and receivership.

The Board found that the transaction constituted a sale of a business within the meaning of the Act, as the new owners acquired the core asset configuration and continued to operate the same kind of business from the same location, thereby preserving the union's bargaining rights.