R. D. Howe

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing certification, but the union subsequently filed counter-petitions reaffirming support for the union.

The Board found the counter-petitions to be a voluntary expression of employee wishes, despite a gap in the evidence regarding their custody prior to mailing.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and certified the union, with one Board member dissenting.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of graduate students employed by the respondent university and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

Because the application was filed near the end of the academic year, the vast majority of the proposed bargaining unit's employment contracts terminated shortly after the application date.

The union requested that the Board depart from its normal voter eligibility rules and allow all persons employed on the application date to vote.

The Board declined this request, noting it would enfranchise many persons with no continuing interest in the unit.

Instead, recognizing the cyclical nature of the employment, the Board directed that the pre-hearing representation vote be deferred until October, when a representative number of employees would be in the bargaining unit.

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the respondent employers engaged in a series of corporate reorganizations and contracting-out arrangements designed to defeat the union's bargaining rights.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employers violated the Labour Relations Act by laying off unionized employees and transferring their work to other entities to avoid collective bargaining obligations.

The Board also found that the primary employer failed to bargain in good faith.

The Board ordered extensive remedial relief, including the reinstatement of the affected employees with back pay and a direction to commence collective bargaining.

Applications for a declaration of a sale of a business and for consent to prosecute were dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The parties agreed to two separate bargaining units, one excluding mechanics and one excluding school bus drivers.

The Board expressed concern that this could result in undue fragmentation of the respondent's workforce.

The Board directed a pre-hearing representation vote using the first unit as the voting constituency, but permitted mechanics to cast segregated ballots.

A hearing was scheduled to follow the vote to determine the appropriate bargaining unit and address the respondent's request to bar the application.

The applicant union applied for certification and a pre-hearing representation vote was held, resulting in a majority for the union.

A group of objecting employees sought a new vote, alleging that union supporters excluded them from organizational meetings and that a union representative was improperly present near the polling area during the vote.

The Board held that organizers are not required to invite all employees to organizational meetings.

The Board also found that the union representative's presence near the polling area did not destroy the secrecy of the ballot or influence the vote.

The objections were dismissed and a certificate was issued to the applicant.

The complainant, a journeyman pipe fitter, was dismissed shortly after he refused to use electrical fusion tools that lacked a C.S.A. label and requested a safety inspector.

The employer claimed the dismissal was due to poor performance and a refusal to work as a welder's helper.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving that the dismissal was not motivated by anti-safety animus.

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

The applicant applied for certification as the bargaining agent for certain employees of the respondent.

The Board first determined that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act.

The parties agreed on most of the bargaining unit description but disputed whether the word "professional" should be included.

The applicant argued that "professional" should be added to cover future non-managerial professionals, such as psychometrists, who might not fall under "Child Care" or "Social Work" staff.

The respondent contended that "professional" was unnecessary and could lead to litigation.

The Board noted its previous decisions in the child welfare field, where "professional" staff were sometimes excluded from "all employee" units, implying that the term has meaning in this context.

To avoid potential fragmentation or exclusion of professional employees from union representation, the Board granted the applicant's request to include "professional" in the bargaining unit description.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant sought certification to represent employees of the respondent and had to establish its status as a trade union under section 1(1)(p) of the Labour Relations Act.

The intervener argued that the applicant was not a valid trade union because it had not properly admitted members or elected a full slate of officers as required by its constitution.

The Board reviewed the steps taken by the applicant, including drafting and approving a constitution, admitting members, and electing four key officers by acclamation.

The Board found that despite not electing the five Executive Council Members, the applicant was a viable organization capable of carrying out its purposes.

The Board concluded that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Act and directed the matter to be listed for continuation of the hearing.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The respondent hospital opposed the vote, arguing the applicant lacked status to represent hospital office and clerical employees and that the application was an abuse of process due to a previously withdrawn application.

The Board directed that the pre-hearing representation vote be taken, noting the applicant had previously established its trade union status, and ordered the ballot box sealed pending a final determination of the respondent's objections at a subsequent hearing.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss an unfair labour practice complaint without a hearing, to defer the matter to internal union procedures, and to require further particulars.

The complaint alleged that the respondents placed the local unions under trusteeship to penalize them for filing a previous complaint.

The Board dismissed the motion to dismiss without a hearing, finding that the complex factual and legal issues required a full hearing.

The Board also declined to defer to the union's internal procedures, noting that the complaint raised fundamental rights under the Labour Relations Act that transcend internal union matters.

Finally, the Board found the particulars provided by the complainants to be sufficient and directed the matter to be listed for a hearing on the merits.

The union filed complaints alleging unfair labour practices and applications for declarations of a sale of a business against the predecessor employer, The Winchester Press Limited, and the successor employers, 2Womor Publications Inc. and Winchester Print.

The Board declared that a sale of a business had occurred to both successor employers.

The Board found that the predecessor employer contravened the Labour Relations Act by refusing to continue to employ a union supporter, Donna MacNaughton, due to anti-union animus.

However, the Board found no contravention regarding the layoff of another employee, Ray Larsen.

The Board also found that the successor employers did not contravene the Act by refusing to hire the grievors, as their decisions were based on bona fide economic considerations and recommendations from the predecessor, without knowledge of the anti-union animus.

The predecessor employer was ordered to compensate MacNaughton for lost wages and benefits.

In an application for certification, a representation vote was held.

The day before the vote, the employer laid off a significant number of employees due to the completion of a contract.

The ballots of the laid-off employees were segregated.

The union protested the segregation.

The Board held that employees on indefinite lay-off are generally ineligible to vote, but those with substantial and legitimate expectations of being recalled in the near future should not be disenfranchised.

The Board directed that the ballots of 11 laid-off employees who had returned to work or had a clear expectation of recall be counted, while the remaining 17 segregated ballots were not to be counted.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices by terminating a student employee who was an active union supporter.

The employee had requested a Saturdays-only schedule, which the employer claimed was unavailable.

After the employee mentioned the union in a meeting regarding his schedule, he was immediately terminated.

The Board found that the employer failed to discharge the reverse onus of proving the termination was free from anti-union motivation, violating section 66 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also found that the employer violated the section 79(1) statutory freeze by unilaterally altering the employee's privilege to work available Saturday hours.

The Board ordered reinstatement with compensation.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint under section 78 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, alleging that the grievor was dealt with contrary to section 76.

The respondents raised preliminary matters, arguing that the Board should defer to grievance arbitration.

The Board applied its established principles for deferral, noting the mature collective bargaining relationship and that the dispute was primarily contractual in nature.

The Board deferred to the arbitration process and adjourned the complaint sine die for up to one year, retaining jurisdiction to ensure the arbitration outcome is fair and not repugnant to the Act.

The applicant employee applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights under section 59(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The union had failed to give the employer notice to bargain within sixty days following certification.

The union did not file a reply and failed to appear at the hearing.

The Board found that the union had slept on its bargaining rights and provided no explanation for its failure to exercise them.

The Board exercised its discretion to terminate the union's bargaining rights without a representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The parties agreed to two bargaining units for bus drivers, separating full-time from part-time and student employees.

Although the Board generally avoids restrictive bargaining unit descriptions confined to specific classifications, it accepted the agreement in this case due to the employer's unique operations, previous voluntary recognition of other units, and reliance on a prior Board decision.

The Board directed that pre-hearing representation votes be taken for both constituencies.

The applicant union sought certification without a representation vote under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging contraventions by the respondent employer.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and filed Minutes of Settlement.

The Board accepted the settlement, found the applicant to be a trade union, defined the appropriate bargaining unit, and directed that a representation vote be taken.

The Board also ordered the respondent to post a notice to employees regarding their rights under the Act and the terms of the settlement.

The applicant union sought to set aside the results of a pre-hearing representation vote, arguing that the presence of the respondent employer's management personnel near the polling area intimidated voters.

The Board found that while it is preferable for management to absent themselves from the voting area, their mere presence, without evidence of electioneering, propagandizing, or other unfair labour practices, did not destroy the secrecy of the ballot or prevent employees from expressing their true wishes.

The application for certification was dismissed as the union failed to obtain more than fifty percent of the ballots cast.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a unit of foremen employed by the respondent.

The respondent argued that the foremen exercised managerial functions and were therefore excluded from the definition of 'employee' under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board examined the duties and responsibilities of the foremen, including their role in disciplining employees, responding to grievances, and assessing probationary employees.

The majority of the Board concluded that the foremen exercised true managerial functions and dismissed the application for certification.

One Board member dissented, finding the foremen's duties to be merely supervisory.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent office, clerical, and technical employees of the respondent credit union.

The parties agreed on most matters but disputed the exclusion of several positions from the bargaining unit.

The Board determined that the Teller/Payroll Clerk, Headteller, Teller/Supervisor, Assistant Manager, and Loan Officer did not exercise managerial functions or act in a confidential capacity relating to labour relations, and were therefore included in the unit.

However, the Steno/Receptionist was excluded due to her confidential duties.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.