Richard M. Brown

The Ontario Labour Relations Board considered applications arising from the franchising of former Dominion stores to Mr. Grocer franchisees.

The union sought a related employer declaration under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, arguing that Dominion, its subsidiary Willett Foods, and the franchisee Penmarkay Foods were under common control and direction.

Penmarkay sought to terminate the union's bargaining rights under s. 63(5), claiming a substantial change in the business.

The Board dismissed the s. 63(5) application, finding no fundamental change in the work performed.

The Board granted the s. 1(4) declaration, finding that Willett exercised real economic control over Penmarkay through the franchise agreement, which dictated margins, rent, and other costs, effectively controlling labour relations.

The declaration preserved the consolidated bargaining structure.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The issue was whether the applicant met the 45% threshold of employees in the bargaining unit.

The union argued that 13 persons whose employment was terminated due to subcontracting should be counted if their pending grievance succeeded.

The employer argued for the 30/30 rule, which would exclude them.

The Board held that under section 1(2) of the Labour Relations Act, the terminated individuals should be treated as employees if reinstated by the arbitration board.

The matter was adjourned pending the release of the arbitration award.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of employees at Moose Factory Hospital.

The respondent employer argued that nine employees were guards under section 12 of the Labour Relations Act and that one employee exercised managerial functions under section 1(3)(b).

The Board found that the nine employees were not guards, as their duties primarily involved protecting property from visitors and intruders rather than monitoring other employees.

The Board also found that the supervisor of security services did not exercise effective control or authority over employees and was therefore not a manager.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the statutory freeze under section 79(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer sent an employee home for refusing to paint her new replacement vehicle black.

During an ongoing certification proceeding, the parties had previously stipulated as a fact that the employer's policy of requiring black cars was no longer in effect and was merely encouraged.

The majority of the Board held that this stipulated fact constituted an agreed term or condition of employment that could not be altered without the union's consent during the statutory freeze period.

The Board directed that the employee be reinstated with full compensation.

The Vice-Chairman dissented, finding that the stipulation was merely a description of facts and did not create a new term or condition of employment.

The Windsor Grain Processor's Union filed a complaint alleging that the employer committed unfair labour practices by interfering in a proposed merger with the U.A.W. and by penalizing the union president and other employees.

The union president was suspended following a physical altercation in the locker room, and the employer posted a notice regarding the merger vote.

The Board found that the employer's actions were not motivated by anti-union animus and that the notice was protected by the free speech proviso.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by withdrawing his discharge grievance without adequate investigation.

The complainant had been terminated for absence without a satisfactory reason, despite providing medical notes.

The union withdrew the grievance after a doctor could not verify the illness for the entire period, but failed to contact other doctors or consult the complainant before doing so.

The Board found the union's conduct to be perfunctory and arbitrary.

The Board ordered the grievance to proceed to arbitration, with the union liable for a portion of any resulting compensation due to its breach and the complainant's delay.

The union applied for certification of a single bargaining unit comprising office, clerical, technical, and food services employees at Ryerson Polytechnical Institute.

The employer argued for three separate units dividing career and non-career employees, and sought to exclude employees funded by special projects.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that a single, comprehensive bargaining unit was appropriate, finding a shared community of interest among career and long-term non-career employees and emphasizing the Board's aversion to fragmented bargaining structures.

The Board also refused to exclude special project employees, noting the source of funding does not negate their right to collective bargaining.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated sections 64 and 66(c) of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer's executive director threatened to discipline the local union president if he did not attend a meeting to discuss a conversation the president had with a fellow employee regarding internal union affairs and a potential breach of confidentiality.

The Board held that the employer's use of disciplinary threats to compel a union official to divulge information about the discharge of his union responsibilities constituted unlawful interference with the administration of the trade union.

A declaration of violation was issued.

The complainant, a former head baker at a hospital, alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to arbitrate three grievances.

The grievances related to a disciplinary warning, a layoff due to technological change, and a claim for a skilled trades allowance.

The Board reviewed the union's handling of each grievance and found that the union had considered the merits and balanced the individual's interests against collective concerns.

The Board concluded that the union's decisions not to proceed to arbitration were not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and dismissed the complaint.

The intervener challenged the applicant union's membership evidence in a certification application, alleging that two employees did not pay the required one dollar initiation fee.

The Board found that one employee did not pay the fee, invalidating his card, but concluded the collector's error was innocent rather than deliberate.

The Board accepted the remaining membership evidence, finding the applicant met the 35% threshold required for a pre-hearing representation vote, and directed that the sealed ballots be counted.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent, Joe Franze Concrete Ltd., and A.J. Concrete Ltd. constituted one employer.

The Board found that while the two companies were engaged in similar concrete work, A.J.C.'s business activity was negligible and posed no real threat to the union's bargaining rights.

Furthermore, granting the application would impose union representation on J.F.C.'s employees against their unexpressed wishes.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to treat the companies as one employer and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a second application to terminate the union's bargaining rights shortly after a previous application was dismissed.

The union requested the Board to exercise its discretion under section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act to refuse to entertain the new application.

The Board balanced the competing policy objectives of employee free choice and stability in collective bargaining.

Noting that the parties were in the process of negotiating a renewal collective agreement and had not had a reasonable opportunity to conclude one, the Board declined to entertain the second application.

The Board also held that allegations of a breach of the duty of fair representation should be addressed through an unfair labour practice complaint rather than by permitting a successive termination application.

The union applied for certification and a representation vote was held.

The union won the counted ballots by a margin of five votes.

The employer challenged the status of a homeworker, arguing she was not a part-time employee.

The Board applied the Sydenham Hospital test, converting her piece-rate income to hours using the minimum wage, and found she worked less than 24 hours in a majority of the six weeks preceding the application.

The Board refused the employer's request to renege on a pre-election agreement to exclude foremen from the voting constituency.

Finally, the Board dismissed the employer's argument that union campaign propaganda regarding a profit-sharing plan invalidated the election, finding the statements were not false and did not impair the employees' freedom of choice.

A certificate was issued to the union.

The union won a representation vote for certification.

The employer sought to set aside the election, arguing that four people who cast ballots were not entitled to vote.

On the day of the vote, the parties had signed a waiver agreeing that the four individuals were eligible to vote and waiving any objections.

The employer later argued that one of the individuals was a student and therefore excluded from the bargaining unit, and that the waiver was signed through inadvertence.

The Board held that the waiver superseded the earlier voters' list agreement and declined to release the employer from its waiver, emphasizing the importance of finality in representation votes.

The Board issued a certificate to the union.

The complainant, a business representative for a union local, alleged that his employer (the local) violated sections 64 and 66 of the Labour Relations Act by discharging him for his union activities and interfering with his choice of representative.

The Board deferred the section 66 discrimination and discharge allegations to arbitration, noting that an arbitrator had already dismissed the complainant's grievances on these issues.

Regarding the section 64 allegation, the Board found that the employer's inquiries into the authority of the complainant's chosen representative, who worked for a different union, did not constitute improper interference.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union alleged that the respondent nursing home was a successor employer following the transfer of a nursing home licence, patients, and land from a predecessor.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the transaction constituted a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, as the essential elements of the business, including the licence and the residents, were transferred to the successor.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees at a newly opened nursing home in Etobicoke.

The intervener union claimed it already represented the employees based on a voluntary recognition agreement with the employer.

The Board held that under section 60(1) of the Labour Relations Act, a voluntary recognition agreement that expands an existing bargaining unit to include new employees is subject to challenge if entered into before the employees are hired or aware of the union representation.

Since the intervener did not demonstrate majority support among the new employees at the time they were hired, the Board declared the intervener was not entitled to represent them, and the applicant's certification application was timely.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing the certification, which included signatures from employees who had previously signed union membership cards.

The Board found that the petition was not voluntary, as it was circulated shortly after a mandatory staff meeting where management discussed working conditions and made implicit promises, creating a reasonable perception of employer influence.

The Board disregarded the petition and granted certification based on the union's documentary evidence of membership.