R. D. Howe

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether the labour relations of Transit Windsor fall under provincial or federal jurisdiction, following the union's request for a conciliation officer.

Transit Windsor operates a municipal transit system but also runs a regular and continuous extra-provincial bus service to Detroit, Michigan.

Applying constitutional principles, the Board determined that the extra-provincial services, though comprising only 3% of total working hours, constituted a continuous and regular part of an indivisible undertaking.

Consequently, the Board advised the Minister that the labour relations between the parties fall within federal jurisdiction.

The applicant union sought consent to institute a prosecution against the employer for alleged violations of section 75(1) of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act.

The union alleged that the employer interfered with its representation rights by restructuring an Academic Committee to include bargainable issues and by communicating directly with faculty members.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding no prima facie case of interference.

The Board held that the committee's recommendatory nature and the employer's communications fell within the scope of management functions and protected employer free speech, respectively.

The complainant, an employee with over nine years of seniority and a history of absenteeism due to injuries, was discharged by the employer after a medical assessment indicated he could not perform his regular job and no light duty work was available.

The complainant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to advocate for him or file a grievance regarding his discharge.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union's perfunctory acquiescence to the discharge, without considering the arbitral jurisprudence on innocent absenteeism or the possibility of preserving his employment status, constituted arbitrary conduct.

The Board ordered the union to file and process a discharge grievance to arbitration at its own expense.

The complainant sought to compel an inspector appointed under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to testify regarding a report and statements made by supervisory personnel.

The Board ruled that the inspector was not a compellable witness pursuant to section 34(2) of the Act, as the hearing constituted a 'proceeding' and the evidence sought related to information obtained under the Act.

The Board also recorded the complainant's undertaking not to add the respondent company to a separate section 68 Labour Relations Act complaint.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the respondent was bound by a collective agreement between the union and Dominion Stores Limited, arguing that the respondent's leasing of premises formerly operated by Dominion constituted a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the respondent's operation of an ethnically oriented supermarket at the location was an expansion of its own pre-existing business rather than a continuation of Dominion's business.

The Board noted the hiatus between operations, the extensive renovations, and the lack of transfer of goodwill or assets other than the lease.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent employer failed to comply with an oral settlement of a prior grievance.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction to enforce an oral settlement.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that it has jurisdiction to enforce oral settlements and that there is no requirement for such settlements to be in writing.

On the merits, the Board found that the respondent's Installation Manager had apparent authority to enter into the settlement on behalf of the employer.

The Board directed the respondent to pay the agreed settlement amounts.

The complainant, an owner-operator who had previously performed subcontracted work for an employer bound by a provincial collective agreement with the respondent union, alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under sections 68 and 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint.

The Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing on the merits, finding that the complainant was not an employee in a bargaining unit represented by the union, and that the union was not engaged in the referral of persons to employment in respect of owner-operators.

The union requested a hearing to quantify damages from a previous grievance award and to amend the style of cause to add a related company, J.B. Carroll Electric Limited, following a section 1(4) declaration by another panel.

The Board held that amending the style of cause was unnecessary because the section 1(4) declaration already made the two companies one employer for the purposes of the Act, meaning the assets of both were susceptible to legal process.

The Board also determined the appropriate interest rate on the agreed-upon compensation of $42,149.25, rejecting the employer's argument for a fluctuating rate and fixing it at 11% from March 11, 1983.

The complainants, tool and die makers, alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation by withdrawing their grievances regarding the right to bump into millwright positions during a layoff.

The union had processed the grievances to the third step but ultimately withdrew them during collective bargaining negotiations, concluding they would fail at arbitration because the complainants lacked the required provincial millwright certificate.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union officials had directed their minds to the merits of the grievances and made a reasoned judgment, and that their actions were not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The applicant union sought certification for employees of the respondent nursing home.

Following a representation vote, two employees who were on maternity leave objected that they had been omitted from the voters' list and were unable to vote.

The Board held that employees on maternity leave are eligible to vote because their prospects for continued employment are sufficiently certain.

However, the Board declined to set aside the vote, finding that one employee failed to take reasonable steps to inquire about her eligibility prior to the vote, and the other employee's ballot could not have mathematically affected the outcome.

The union was certified for the full-time bargaining unit.

The applicant union sought certification for a production unit, arguing that engineering department employees lacked a community of interest and should be excluded.

The respondent employer sought to include them, citing future plans for engineering personnel to perform substantial work on the shop floor.

The Board initially ruled that evidence of community of interest must be confined to circumstances existing on the application date.

Upon the employer's request for reconsideration, the Board revoked its ruling, holding that in the unique circumstances of the case, the employer could adduce evidence of future shop work, with its relevance and weight to be determined later.

Three complainants alleged that the respondent union and its business agent breached the Labour Relations Act regarding hiring hall referrals.

The respondents raised preliminary objections that the complaints should be dismissed due to undue delay in filing.

The Board found that one complainant (Marinaro) had delayed, but the delay was partly due to the union's refusal to provide access to hiring hall records and his attempts to use internal union procedures.

The Board allowed his complaint to proceed, noting any prejudice could be addressed in remedy.

Another complainant (Countryman) failed to exercise due diligence in checking his status on the out-of-work list for over a year; his complaint was dismissed for unreasonable delay.

The complainant union alleged that the employer committed unfair labour practices under sections 64 and 67(1) of the Labour Relations Act by communicating directly with bargaining unit employees regarding a proposed extension agreement.

The employer had sought to negotiate an extension agreement with the union to match a competitor's terms, but the union refused to meet.

The employer subsequently sent letters to employees and had management personnel speak with employees on the plant floor.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer did not attempt to bargain directly with the employees and that the communications were protected by the employer's freedom of expression under section 64, as they did not involve coercion, intimidation, threats, promises, or undue influence.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed an unfair labour practice by discharging a casual nurse during a union organizing campaign.

The grievor had cancelled three of her scheduled shifts in retaliation for the employer cancelling one of her shifts.

The Board found that the employer discharged the grievor solely due to her unprofessional and retaliatory conduct, and that the decision was not tainted by anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union sought certification without a vote under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act following a representation vote in which it did not obtain majority support.

The union alleged improper conduct by the respondent employer and the intervener association.

The Board found that the allegations, even if proven, did not make out a prima facie case for certification without a vote.

As the union did not seek any other remedy, the application for certification was dismissed with a six-month bar.

Several employees applied to terminate the bargaining rights of Locals 175 and 633 of the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union following the sale of two grocery stores by Gordons Markets to new independent owners.

The union argued the termination applications were untimely because it had given notice to bargain to the successor employers under section 63(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the union's letters to the new owners merely informed them of the union's successor rights and requested a meeting to discuss the application of the existing collective agreements, but did not constitute clear and unequivocal notice of a desire to bargain a new or modified collective agreement.

Consequently, the letters did not trigger the statutory bar to termination applications.

The applicant union referred grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent successor employer breached the collective agreement by failing to pay union wages and benefits after a sale of business.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction over non-construction work and that the grievors failed to mitigate their damages by refusing to work for the new non-union company.

The Board held it had jurisdiction under sections 124 and 89 to hear all aspects of the grievances.

The Board further held that the grievors were not required to mitigate their losses by accepting employment on substantially poorer terms, and that the respondent's liability commenced on the date of the sale, not the date of the Board's prior successor rights declaration.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of occasional teachers.

Following a representation vote in which the union was successful, a group of objecting employees sought to have the vote set aside.

The objectors argued that a clerical error in the street address on the Notice of Taking of Vote, the use of segregated ballots, and the application of the Board's thirty-day rule compromised the vote.

The Board dismissed the objections, finding no evidence that the address error prevented anyone from voting or that the segregation of ballots departed from usual practice.

The Board declined to direct a new vote and ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer failed to bargain in good faith.

The employer failed to appear at the hearing.

The Board found the employer contravened section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to provide wage information, reneging on previously agreed language regarding union dues check-off, and pressing illegal demands to impasse, including a demand for employee ratification.

The Board also found the employer's request for a section 40 final offer vote was unlawful as it was used to avoid the duty to bargain.

The Board directed the employer to execute a collective agreement containing the agreed-upon terms.

The complainant filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the respondent union and its officials violated sections 3, 68, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act by wrongfully cancelling his union membership.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaints for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the motion and dismissed the complaints, finding that section 3 does not create a substantive offence, section 68 only applies to employees in a bargaining unit (which the complainant was not), and section 70 requires an element of intimidation or coercion to compel a person, which was not alleged in the mere cancellation of membership.