R. Herman

The complainant hospital created a new Registered Nurse position in its alcohol and addiction program and assigned the work to the Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) bargaining unit.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) filed a jurisdictional complaint, arguing the work involved psycho-social counselling and should be assigned to its paramedical members.

The Board found that the position required a registered nurse to provide a multidisciplinary approach to treatment.

Since ONA represents registered nurses at the hospital and no OPSEU members were capable of performing the job, the Board upheld the hospital's assignment and dismissed the complaint.

During a hearing for an alleged unfair labour practice, the applicant union sought to play a tape recording of an employee meeting during the cross-examination of a witness.

The Board ruled that the union could play the tape recording forthwith, without the Board first being satisfied as to its accuracy, provided the witness was first given an opportunity to deny or agree that he made the alleged statements.

The Board also continued a direction prohibiting communication of the tape's contents to the witness prior to it being played.

In an application for certification involving seven branch offices of National Trust, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined whether certain employees exercised managerial functions under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board examined the duties of seven Assistant Branch Managers/Administration Officers, finding that four exercised managerial functions and were excluded from the bargaining unit, while three did not and were included.

The Board also determined that Administration Officer Trainees did not exercise managerial functions but were excluded from the bargaining unit on community of interest grounds.

Finally, the Board ruled that the original panel was not seized with the remaining issues in the proceeding.

The complainants, two school board maintenance employees, were discharged after pleading guilty to possession of marijuana, which they had stored in a school.

They alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to advise them of the five-day time limit for filing grievances and by ultimately deciding not to take their grievances to arbitration.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union's decision not to arbitrate was based on a reasonable consideration of relevant factors, including the seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of success, and the impact on the bargaining relationship.

The Board also held that the union did not act arbitrarily by failing to proactively advise the complainants of their grievance rights when the complainants had not sought the union's assistance.