R. J. Gallivan

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union applied for a declaration that the Ministry of Natural Resources' contract with two individuals to operate Fitzroy Provincial Park constituted a transfer of an undertaking under the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act.

The Board found that the contractors were operating the park for their own account, assuming financial risks, and using the physical assets and similar jobs as formerly performed by Crown employees.

The Board concluded that the transaction was analogous to a lease or franchise and declared it a transfer of an undertaking from the Crown to an employer.

The complainant filed a complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging he was terminated for raising safety concerns.

The union had already filed a grievance on his behalf and proceeded to schedule an arbitration hearing.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the Board complaint, arguing the complainant had elected the arbitration route under section 24(2) of the Act.

The Board agreed, finding that by allowing the union to proceed to the point of scheduling an arbitration hearing without objection, the complainant had elected arbitration and could not pursue the same matter before the Board.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant, an employee, applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The applicant submitted a document containing signatures of employees who wished to decertify the union.

The document was a photocopy of individual sheets that had been pasted together, with the originals allegedly sent to the union's head office.

The union did not present evidence to contradict this claim.

The Board accepted the document as evidence of the employees' wishes, finding that the signatures collected by the applicant were obtained voluntarily.

The Board ordered a representation vote to determine if the employees wished to continue being represented by the union.

One Board member dissented, arguing that the petition should have been rejected due to its form and the circumstances of its circulation.

In an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights, a representation vote resulted in a tie.

One employee requested that the vote be set aside, claiming she had misread the ballot and mistakenly voted in favour of the union when she intended to vote against it.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the request, holding that it would not inquire into the subjective intent of a voter or look behind an unambiguously marked ballot, as doing so would undermine the secrecy and integrity of the voting process.

During a lengthy hearing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the employer representative on the panel became too ill to continue.

The parties could not agree on whether to substitute the incapacitated member or how to proceed.

The Board held that, unlike other statutes, the Labour Relations Act does not contain a provision allowing the Board to replace a panel member who is unable to complete their duties due to illness.

Absent the consent of all parties, the Board lacked jurisdiction to substitute the member or continue with the remaining two members.

Consequently, the Board directed that the complaint be heard de novo before a new panel.

The union filed a complaint alleging the university violated the duty to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to negotiate the union's 9-point programme regarding the divestment of the Royal Conservatory of Music, refusing to disclose related information, and refusing to continue negotiations pending the outcome of the complaint.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the university's refusal to discuss the 9-point programme and its refusal to continue negotiations pending the complaint violated the duty to bargain in good faith.

However, the Board found no violation regarding the refusal to disclose information or alleged delay.

The Board directed the university to bargain in good faith and table a full package of proposals.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a craft bargaining unit of stage employees at the respondent's scenery construction shop.

The parties disagreed on the scope and geographic description of the unit.

The Board determined that, given the lack of integration and community of interest between the respondent's different locations, the unit should be restricted to the specific municipal address of the shop.

Furthermore, to accommodate potential future hiring of other craft members, the Board defined the unit broadly as 'all stage employees' at that location rather than listing specific classifications.

A certificate was issued as the applicant demonstrated over 55% membership support.

In an application for certification, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined the eligibility of three individuals to vote in a representation vote for an office employees bargaining unit.

The Board ruled that Chantelle MacAllister's ballot would be counted because the applicant abandoned its challenge.

Lisette Larocque's ballot would be counted because the respondent could not unilaterally withdraw from an earlier agreement that she was an employee in the unit.

Jean Lamoureux's ballot would not be counted because the respondent had previously agreed he was in a different, mutually exclusive bargaining unit on the eligibility date.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description but disputed whether five individuals exercised managerial functions and should be excluded under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The parties requested an interim certificate and an adjournment to resolve the dispute during collective bargaining.

The Board determined that it had jurisdiction to issue a final certificate, rather than an interim one, because the dispute over the five individuals' status would not affect the union's right to certification or the description of the bargaining unit.

A final certificate was issued.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent occasional teachers in the respondent's elementary panel and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The respondent argued the application was an abuse of process due to a recently dismissed identical application and disputed the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board declined to resolve the abuse of process and bargaining unit disputes at this stage, noting that a pre-hearing vote is designed to test representation quickly based on an appearance of support.

The Board directed a pre-hearing representation vote by mailed ballot, with the ballots to be segregated and the ballot box sealed pending resolution of the disputed issues.

The complainant alleged that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to actively participate in or fund her independent legal counsel for a judicial review application brought by her employer.

The employer was seeking to quash a previous Board decision that had found both the employer and the union in breach of the Act.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union's decision was based on the advice of legal counsel and was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The union was not obligated to underwrite the complainant's legal costs for the judicial review.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 107 of the Labour Relations Act regarding his authority to appoint an employer nominee to a board of arbitration under section 44(4).

The arbitration was previously directed by the Board as a remedy for unfair labour practices committed by both the employer and the union, which had resulted in the complainant's termination.

The employer refused to appoint a nominee, arguing that it had applied for judicial review and that the arbitration was not pursuant to the collective agreement.

The Board advised the Minister that the arbitration process contemplated by its remedial order is a process under the collective agreement to which section 44(4) applies, and therefore the Minister has the legal authority to appoint the employer nominee.

The applicant union brought an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging a sale of a business occurred when the respondent corporation purchased all the shares of the employer.

The Board found that the transfer of shares left the corporate employer intact and did not constitute a sale of a business within the meaning of the Act.

The application was dismissed, with the Board noting that the union's bargaining rights and collective agreement with the original employer remained in effect.