R. D. Howe

The applicant union applied under section 95(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether certain persons were employees of the respondent.

The respondent and intervener objected to the jurisdiction of the Board Officer to conduct an inquiry, arguing that there was no 'question' as to employee status since they conceded the persons were employees within the meaning of the Act, just not employees of the respondent.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that it has jurisdiction under section 95(2) to determine not only if a person is an employee, but also whether they are an employee of the specific employer party to the collective agreement.

The Board revised the Board Officer's appointment to inquire into whether the individuals are employees of the respondent.

During a hearing for an unfair labour practice complaint, the complainant union subpoenaed a journalist who had written an article about the respondent employer's alleged threat to cancel its animal control contract.

The journalist refused to reveal his sources for the article.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that the identity of the sources was relevant and admissible, and that no journalistic privilege exists in Ontario to protect a reporter's sources.

When the journalist continued to refuse to answer the question, the Board consented to state a case to the Divisional Court for contempt proceedings.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

An objecting employee alleged that a union organizer told her she would not be permitted to work unless she joined the union.

The objector had not filed prior notice or particulars of this allegation as required by Rule 47.

The Board declined to appoint a Board Officer or order a representation vote immediately, but, balancing natural justice and the risk of delay, exercised its discretion to allow the unrepresented objector an opportunity to file particulars and adduce evidence at a further hearing.

One Board member dissented, arguing the union should be certified without delay.

The applicant union sought certification for employees of the respondent at its Hamilton and London clinics.

The parties disputed the inclusion of two employees in the bargaining units.

The respondent argued that the Assistant Director at Hamilton should be excluded under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act or for lack of community of interest, but the Board restricted the issue to section 1(3)(b) based on prior proceedings and found she was not excluded.

The Board found that the Consultant at London spent the vast majority of her time performing sales and office functions and was therefore excluded from the bargaining unit as office and sales staff.

Certificates were issued for both bargaining units.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the grievor was unjustly suspended and discharged by the respondent employer.

The grievor was discharged following two incidents of insubordination and violence towards a general foreman, including pushing the foreman to the floor and throwing a hard hat at him.

The grievor alleged the foreman had provoked him with a racial slur, but the Board rejected this evidence based on credibility findings.

The Board found that the respondent had just cause for discharge given the seriousness of the assault, the grievor's short employment record, and his lack of remorse.

The Board declined to substitute a lesser penalty and dismissed the grievance.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed petitions in opposition to the union, which, if voluntary, would normally cause the Board to order a representation vote.

The Board found that the petitions were not voluntary because they were circulated in the presence of a lead person perceived as having managerial authority, and because the plant manager had created an atmosphere of concern for job security by mentioning possible plant closure and calling employees into his office.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and issued a certificate to the applicant.

One Board member dissented, arguing a vote should be ordered.

The applicant union applied for certification and filed sufficient membership evidence for automatic certification.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing the union.

The Board found that the petition lacked evidence of custody during a period of its circulation and was signed by a foreman.

Consequently, the Board gave no weight to the petition, declined to order a representation vote, and granted the certification.

The applicant trade union applied under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that following the sale of a business to the respondent, the respondent intermingled employees from its pre-existing business with those of the purchased business.

The respondent and an intervening union argued that no intermingling occurred and that the applicant had abandoned its bargaining rights when the original plant closed.

The Board found that the applicant had not abandoned its bargaining rights and that an intermingling of employees had occurred when the respondent transferred operations and integrated them with the purchased business.

Given the representation levels of the competing unions, the Board ordered a representation vote for the full-time employees to determine their bargaining agent, while excluding part-time employees who were previously unrepresented.

The applicant union applied under section 73(2) of the Labour Relations Act for consent to continue its supervision over its subordinate local.

The Board found that the local had become so torn by dissent that it could not function properly, with severe disruption occurring at meetings.

The applicant proposed a plan of action, including the temporary exclusion of three disruptive members from meetings and the appointment of a pro tem executive to transition back to local autonomy.

The Board found the plan reasonable and granted consent to continue supervision until February 28, 1981, conditional upon the applicant fulfilling its undertakings.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of nurses.

The parties disputed whether Head Nurses and the In-Service and Discharge Planning Co-ordinator should be excluded from the bargaining unit under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act for exercising managerial functions.

The Board reviewed the duties of the disputed classifications, finding that their functions were primarily professional, co-ordinating, and advisory rather than managerial.

The Board concluded that the individuals did not exercise independent decision-making authority over labour relations matters and included them in the bargaining units.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent hotel.

The respondent challenged the applicant's trade union status due to a recent merger of two locals, and argued against the exclusion of part-time employees and students from the bargaining unit.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and maintained its standard practice of excluding part-time employees and students.

However, because many membership cards bore the name of a predecessor local rather than the newly merged applicant, the Board found an element of doubt regarding the employees' intentions and ordered a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, arguing that the cards were valid and automatic certification should have been granted.

Following a finding that the respondent unlawfully terminated the grievor's employment, the parties were unable to agree on the amount of compensation owed.

The respondent argued that the grievor failed to mitigate his loss by spending the majority of his job search time pursuing professional employment rather than trade employment.

The Board found that the grievor, who was qualified for both professional and trade positions, took reasonable steps to mitigate his loss by seeking employment in both fields.

The Board ordered the respondent to pay compensation for lost wages and to provide vacation credits that would have accrued but for the unlawful termination.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer requested an adjournment and a change of venue to Ottawa to allow for simultaneous translation, arguing the proceedings should be bilingual.

The Board denied the adjournment, noting its strict policy against non-consensual adjournments absent compelling circumstances, and observing that an interpreter was already provided and the respondent was represented by bilingual counsel.

The respondent and its counsel then withdrew from the hearing.

The Board proceeded, found the applicant to be a trade union, determined the appropriate bargaining unit, and issued a certificate as the union had more than 55% membership support.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the respondent was a successor employer to the predecessor company under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively, that they were related employers under section 1(4).

The predecessor's business had been placed in receivership, and the respondent subsequently leased the premises, purchased equipment, hired former employees, and temporarily manufactured the predecessor's product line under the predecessor's trade name before transitioning to safety footwear.

The Board found that a sale of a business had occurred within the meaning of section 55.

The Board declined to terminate the union's bargaining rights under section 55(5), finding that the change from casual to safety footwear did not constitute a substantial change in the character of the business.

The section 1(4) application was dismissed.

The applicant union brought an application under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent was the successor employer of a tavern business.

The respondent had previously sold the business to a numbered company but resumed management and control after the purchaser defaulted on its payments.

The Board held that the resumption of control constituted a 'sale' within the meaning of section 55, as it fell within the broad definition of 'any other manner of disposition'.

The Board declared the respondent bound by the collective agreement.

The Board also declined to award costs against the respondent for an earlier adjournment, noting its general practice against awarding costs as a penalty.

The complainant union alleged that the grievor was discharged for his union organizing activities, contrary to the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer claimed the discharge was due to poor productivity and a bad attitude.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving that the termination was free from anti-union animus.

The Board noted the timing of the discharge, the lack of prior discipline, and inconsistencies in management's evidence.

The Board ordered the grievor reinstated with full compensation.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint regarding the discharge of a key union organizer.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing the union.

The Board found the petition was not proven to be voluntary due to the presence of a management member during its signing, and certified the union without a vote.

Regarding the discharge, the Board found the employer proved the employee was fired for an unauthorized after-hours entry onto company property, not for his union activities.

The unfair labour practice complaint was dismissed.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer's foreman interfered with the union's administration by soliciting employees to revoke their union membership and dues check-off.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the foreman initiated discussions and used promises of protection to encourage revocations, which constituted a violation of section 56 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the employer to cease and desist, compensate the union for lost dues from one employee whose revocation was directly caused by the foreman, and post a notice of the decision.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer laid off two employees due to their union activities, contrary to the Labour Relations Act.

The employer claimed the layoffs were strictly for financial reasons and lack of flexibility.

The Board applied the reverse onus under section 79(4a) of the Act, requiring the employer to prove its actions were devoid of anti-union animus.

Because the employer failed to call key management personnel who allegedly made anti-union statements, the Board drew an adverse inference.

The Board found the employer failed to discharge its burden of proof, concluded the layoffs were tainted by anti-union motive, and ordered reinstatement with full compensation.

The complainant, a journeyman millwright, was discharged by the company following a conveyor breakdown.

The union processed his grievance through several steps and ultimately negotiated a conditional reinstatement without loss of seniority, which the complainant accepted but later challenged.

The complainant alleged the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act by acting arbitrarily, delaying the process, and failing to obtain compensation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union officials made a reasoned decision based on the merits of the grievance and their past experience, and did not act in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner.