R. D. Howe

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

The intervener, the incumbent union, argued that the applicant must first prove its status as a trade union before a vote could be directed.

The Board, following its previous jurisprudence, held that there was no reason to single out the trade union status issue for special treatment and directed the pre-hearing vote, deferring the resolution of the status issue to a subsequent hearing.

One Board Member dissented, arguing that directing a vote before status is proven misleads employees and disrupts established bargaining relationships.

In an application for certification, a pre-hearing representation vote resulted in a tie with four segregated ballots.

The Board held a hearing to determine the eligibility of the employees who cast the segregated ballots.

Applying the 'seven week rule', the Board determined that one employee was eligible to vote as a full-time employee, while the others were ineligible as part-time employees or students employed during the school vacation period.

Because counting the single eligible segregated ballot would reveal how that employee voted, the Board directed that a new representation vote be taken to preserve the secrecy of the ballot.

The applicant union filed an application alleging a sale of business and related employer status between the respondents.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application without a hearing, arguing the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case and demanding further particulars.

The Board held that the application made out a prima facie case and that the statutory reverse onus provisions limit the extent to which an applicant must particularize facts exclusively within the respondents' knowledge.

However, the Board directed the applicant to provide further particulars regarding specific allegations of improper conduct.

The Board also deferred ruling on the intervener's status until it adduced evidence of a valid collective agreement.

The complainant alleged he was discharged by the respondent contrary to section 66(a) of the Labour Relations Act for his union activities.

The respondent claimed the discharge was due to the complainant's involvement in overcharging a client.

The Board found that the respondent's actions, including circumventing the union's bargaining rights and abruptly discharging the complainant shortly before collective bargaining was to begin, demonstrated anti-union animus.

The Board concluded the discharge was tainted by anti-union motivation and ordered the complainant's reinstatement with compensation, subject to a reduction for a brief delay in filing the complaint.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the employer interfered with a representation vote by paying a 10.5% retroactive wage increase to employees one week before the vote.

The union sought certification without a vote under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer had decided on and communicated the wage increase before receiving notice of the certification application.

Consequently, the employer was required by the statutory freeze provisions in section 79(2) to implement the increase as planned, and doing so did not constitute a violation of section 64.

The complainant alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to properly process his grievances regarding overtime distribution and his subsequent discharge.

He also alleged the employer discharged him for filing the overtime grievance, contrary to section 66(a).

The Board found the union acted arbitrarily and with a non-caring attitude in handling the grievances, violating section 68.

The Board deferred the section 66(a) complaint against the employer to arbitration, ordering the union to engage independent counsel to revise and process the grievances to arbitration at its own expense.

The applicant union applied for certification for two bargaining units at the respondent hotel.

The Board found that the head housekeeper exercised managerial functions and excluded him from the units.

The respondent argued that the application should be dismissed under section 12 of the Labour Relations Act because the head housekeeper, acting as management, solicited union memberships.

The Board held that section 12 did not apply because the head housekeeper was acting contrary to the employer's interests and employees did not perceive him as acting on behalf of management.

However, due to concerns about threats of job loss and misrepresentations made by the head housekeeper during the organizing campaign, the Board exercised its discretion to order a representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties disputed whether a summer student, Joanne Johnston, should be included in the employee count on the date of the application.

The student was hired before the application date but did not commence work or attend orientation until after the application date.

Applying its established 'one month rule', the Board held that because she was not at work on the date of the application and had not been at work at any time during the one month period immediately preceding the application, she was not an employee for the purposes of the count.

The Board certified the applicant pending final resolution of the remaining disputed employees.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees working aboard the respondent's tugs in the Port of Hamilton.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing its operations fell under federal jurisdiction pursuant to the British North America Act's provisions on navigation and shipping.

The Board examined the respondent's operations, which included pushing a fuel barge, docking ships, and towing vessels extra-provincially.

The Board concluded that the respondent's tug boat operations were an integral part of or necessarily incidental to federal navigation and shipping undertakings.

Consequently, the Board found that the respondent's labour relations were governed by the Canada Labour Code rather than provincial legislation, and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a bargaining unit consisting of cleaning staff at a single apartment building managed by the respondent.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description.

The Board held a hearing to address concerns about undue fragmentation of the workforce.

Given the history of viable collective bargaining relationships in the property management industry based on similar site-specific cleaning units, and relying on a previous decision involving the same parties at a nearby building, the Board accepted the agreed-upon bargaining unit as appropriate and granted the certificate.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that three construction companies were carrying on associated or related activities under common control or direction and should be treated as one employer.

The Board found that the companies shared premises, expenses, and administrative services, and that one company provided extensive managerial and supervisory services to the others.

The Board inferred that the arrangement was designed to allow a non-unionized company to bid on projects outside the unionized company's geographic area after province-wide bargaining legislation was enacted.

The Board granted the declaration, finding the entities constituted one employer bound by the provincial collective agreement.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent nursing home.

A group of employees filed petitions opposing the certification.

The Board held a hearing to determine the voluntariness of the petitions.

The Board found that the employee who circulated the petitions was reasonably perceived by other employees as being in greater proximity to managerial authority, and that she had indicated to signatories that loss of employment or reduction of hours could result from failing to sign.

Consequently, the Board found the petitions were not voluntary and did not cast doubt on the union's membership support.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union applied for a declaration of successor rights under section 54 of the Labour Relations Act following a purported merger with the respondent association.

The intervener employer raised a preliminary objection that the applicant lacked status as a trade union in Ontario because it had no prior presence, officers, or permanent office in the province.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that the statutory definition of a trade union does not require a pre-existing presence in Ontario.

Finding that the applicant was a viable organization of employees with a written constitution and elected officers, the Board concluded it was a trade union within the meaning of the Act and directed the matter to proceed on the merits.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for part-time employees of the respondent nursing home, having previously applied for certification for full-time employees.

The union requested that membership cards from the full-time application be transferred to the part-time application.

The respondent and objectors argued that cards should only be counted in one application.

The Board held that the cards could be applied to both files in succession, as the seven-week rule for determining part-time status could result in employees moving between units.

The Board also enlarged the time for the applicant to file a Form 8 Declaration concerning the transferred cards.

The applicant union sought certification, and a representation vote was held.

The respondent employer and objecting employees alleged that the union's president breached the Registrar's 'silent period' direction by speaking to employees waiting to vote.

Although there was no direct evidence of what was said, the union president did not testify to explain his conduct.

The Board drew an adverse inference, concluded the direction was likely contravened, and set aside the vote, ordering a new representation vote.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for construction labourers employed by the respondent in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector in Ontario.

The respondent alleged improper conduct by the union during organizing, but failed to adduce evidence to substantiate the claims.

The Board interpreted section 131a of the Labour Relations Act and determined that the applicant was entitled to two certificates: one for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector province-wide, and another for all other sectors in the relevant geographic area, excluding employees already covered by subsisting collective agreements.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed an unfair labour practice by closing its Windsor Branch Plant and servicing the area from Chatham, arguing the closure was designed to remove the union as bargaining agent.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's decision was motivated solely by bona fide business considerations, specifically the loss of a major customer account and the need to improve profitability, and was devoid of any anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer laid off sixteen employees to interfere with a union organizing campaign.

The employer claimed the layoffs were due to automation and economic reasons.

Applying the reverse onus under section 79(4a) of the Labour Relations Act, the Board found that while some layoffs were justified by business reasons, the extent of the layoffs was motivated in part by anti-union animus upon the employer learning of the certification application.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the four most senior laid-off employees with compensation.

A group of employees applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights under section 51(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The union had given notice to bargain but failed to commence bargaining within sixty days.

The union did not appear at the hearing to provide an explanation for its failure to bargain.

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

The applicant union and respondent employer disputed the eligibility of three individuals who cast segregated ballots in a representation vote.

The parties agreed at the hearing to count the first ballot.

The Board ordered the second ballot counted because the employee had been reinstated with full compensation in a related unfair labour practice proceeding, entitling him to participate in the vote.

The Board ruled the third ballot should not be counted because the employee had been transferred out of the bargaining unit for an indefinite period prior to the date the vote was taken, failing the Board's two-pronged voter eligibility rule.