R. 0. MacDowell

The applicant union sought to represent various categories of teachers under the Labour Relations Act.

Several applications were adjourned sine die pending the resolution of test cases regarding whether the teachers were covered by the Labour Relations Act or the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act.

The respondent employers requested the applications be dismissed, while the union requested further adjournment pending judicial review of the test cases.

The Board declined both requests and directed that the applications be scheduled for hearing to resolve the outstanding issues.

The applicant union sought certification for a departmental bargaining unit consisting of approximately 42 employees in the editorial department of TV Guide Magazine.

The respondent employer argued that the appropriate unit should encompass all employees of the magazine or both TV Guide and Canadian Living.

The Board found that the editorial department employees did not share a separate community of interest distinct from other employees, noting shared services, common terms of employment, and functional integration.

The Board rejected the union's proposed departmental unit, holding that an all-employee unit was appropriate, and directed the matter to be relisted for further hearing.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Frank Plastina Investments Ltd. (FPI) and Sherwood Village Homes Inc. (Sherwood) were related employers.

FPI was a concrete and drain contractor bound by a collective agreement with the union, while Sherwood was a residential builder.

Both companies were under the common control and direction of the Plastina family, shared premises, and had a symbiotic business relationship.

The Board found that the entities were engaged in associated or related activities or businesses and declared them to be one employer for the purposes of the Act.

The applicant employer association filed a grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act challenging the respondent union's unilateral implementation of a '50/50' hiring system.

For many years, employers had been permitted to 'name-hire' any union member without restriction.

The employers argued that the union was estopped from altering this past practice.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement designated the union as the sole agent for supplying employees and did not guarantee a right to name-hire.

The Board held that promissory estoppel did not apply because the union had previously interrupted the practice, putting employers on notice, and the employers had unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a contractual right to name-hire.

The employer applied for a declaration that its employees engaged in an unlawful strike by boycotting overtime during collective bargaining, prior to the release of a 'no board' report.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declared the overtime boycott an unlawful strike under the Labour Relations Act.

The parties resolved the matter without a formal hearing, with union officials agreeing not to condone the activity and to advise employees of its illegality.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer bargained in bad faith during negotiations following a lengthy and unsuccessful strike.

The union argued that the employer's proposals, which included a less generous monetary offer than before the strike and a demand that the union withdraw pending unfair labour practice complaints, were illegal and designed to avoid a collective agreement.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer was engaging in hard bargaining based on its superior bargaining power.

While the Board noted that an employer cannot use its bargaining power to compel the withdrawal of statutory complaints, it found that the union had not unequivocally refused to negotiate the issue or demanded its removal from the table, but had instead offered its own compromises.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of nurses employed by the respondent foundation.

A dispute arose over whether four part-time nurse examiners working on a national breast screening study were employees of the respondent or the National Cancer Institute of Canada.

Applying the York Condominium indicia of employer status, the Board found that the respondent exercised sufficient control, acted as paymaster, and provided the organizational framework for the nurses' work.

The Board concluded the nurse examiners were employees of the respondent and included them in the bargaining unit, directing that a final certificate issue.

The union applied for certification to represent employees of the Elizabeth Fry Society of Ottawa.

The parties disputed the composition of the bargaining unit, specifically regarding Ontario Youth Corps Programme participants, relief workers, students, and contract employees.

The Board found that Youth Corps participants were employees but excluded them from the bargaining units due to their unique terms of employment and lack of community of interest.

The Board applied its standard 7-week rule to determine part-time status for relief workers and its 30/30 rule to determine which employees were in the bargaining unit on the application date.

The Board certified the union on an interim basis for the full-time unit and appointed a Labour Relations Officer to settle the part-time unit list.

The applicant union brought an application under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act alleging a sale of a business and related employer status among the respondents.

At a preliminary hearing, the respondents argued that filing a written statement of facts and certain commercial documents was sufficient to satisfy their evidentiary onus under sections 1(5) and 63(13) of the Act, without producing witnesses for cross-examination.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rejected this argument, holding that the statutory onus requires respondents to produce witnesses to testify under oath as to the material facts of the transactions and relationships, and to be subject to cross-examination.

The Board directed the matter to be relisted for hearing.

The complainant requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsider its decision dismissing his unfair labour practice complaint against the respondent employer.

The complainant sought a new hearing to introduce new evidence, primarily in the form of affidavits obtained shortly after the original hearing.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the new evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence prior to the first hearing and that a party is not entitled to a new hearing simply to correct evidentiary inadequacies or shore up an inadequate case.

The applicant union claimed that a former contractor transferred its business to the respondent when the respondent won a competitive tender for a food services contract at a correctional centre.

The union argued that the respondent was bound by the existing collective agreement as a successor employer.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the loss of a contract by tender to a competitor does not constitute a sale or transfer of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, relying on its previous decision in Metropolitan Parking Inc.

In an application alleging an unlawful lockout, the union sought the production of the employer's financial statements via a subpoena duces tecum.

The employer refused to produce the documents, arguing they were confidential and that it would only produce them if ordered by a court.

The Board ruled that the financial documents were arguably relevant because the employer had put its financial situation in issue as the reason for reducing employees' hours.

The Board directed that the documents be deposited with the Registrar, noting that confidentiality does not privilege documents from disclosure and that an implied undertaking protects against their use for collateral purposes.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the respondent was a successor employer under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent had acquired an assignment of a lease and purchased some equipment from a Dominion store that had been closed for a year and a half.

The Board found that due to the long hiatus between the closure of the predecessor and the opening of the respondent's business, any goodwill had dissipated.

The transaction was characterized as a mere transfer of surplus assets rather than the sale of a business.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant, a unionized painter, alleged that his union breached section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to refer him to a job opening at a company where he had previously worked.

The union's business manager had referred other out-of-work members who had established relationships with the company and had been part of its crew in the previous season.

The Board found that the hiring hall was not operated on a strict 'first in, first out' basis, and that the business manager's exercise of discretion in balancing various equitable factors was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union requested a determination under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act regarding the employee status of certain individuals.

The respondent employer objected, arguing the union was seeking to alter an established status quo.

The Board found that a question had arisen between the parties that could not be resolved during collective bargaining, fitting squarely within section 106(2).

The Board appointed a Board Officer to inquire into the duties and responsibilities of the disputed individuals, noting that historical agreements on bargaining unit configuration do not freeze the unit in perpetuity, though they may be relevant evidence.

Following a finding that the employer unlawfully discharged a union president, a hearing was held to determine the quantum of compensation.

The employer disputed the employee's entitlement to lost overtime pay and failed to appear at the hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board awarded the employee $200.61 for lost overtime.

However, the majority of the Board declined the union's request for costs, reaffirming its policy that costs are generally not awarded in Board proceedings, despite the employer's non-appearance.

One Board member dissented, arguing that the employer's flagrant disregard for the Board's process warranted a full costs award.

The applicants filed an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union's counsel subsequently informed the Board that the union did not desire to continue representing the employees, leading the Board to terminate the bargaining rights under section 57(5) of the Labour Relations Act.

The union then requested a reconsideration, claiming its initial letter was based on inaccurate information and citing defects in the notice to employees.

The Board dismissed the request, holding that the union had unequivocally abandoned its rights and could not resile from the consequences of its hasty decision.

The applicant union applied for certification and a pre-hearing representation vote was held, which the union won.

The respondent employer argued that the union's recent merger and name change created a new entity or caused confusion among employees regarding the membership evidence.

The Board found that despite the variations in nomenclature, there was no substantive change in the union's legal identity and no evidence of employee confusion.

The Board certified the union pending the final resolution of the bargaining unit composition.

The applicant union applied for certification and alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices during the organizing campaign.

The employer held a captive audience meeting where it threatened job security and plant closure if the union was successful.

The following day, the employer discharged four key union supporters.

The Board found that the employer's conduct violated sections 64, 66, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

Given the severity of the employer's interference, the Board concluded that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained through a representation vote.

Finding that the union had membership support adequate for collective bargaining, the Board certified the union pursuant to section 8 of the Act.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's retail store.

The union filed sufficient documentary evidence of membership to be certified without a representation vote.

However, a group of employees filed a petition opposing certification, which included signatures of employees who had previously signed union membership cards.

The Board found that the petition was originated and circulated by the head cashier, who exercised supervisory functions and was perceived by employees as having a special relationship with management.

Consequently, the Board concluded the petition did not represent a voluntary change of heart and declined to order a representation vote.

The union was certified.

One Board member dissented.