R. J. Swenor

The applicants applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights under section 57 of the Labour Relations Act.

To succeed, they needed to prove that at least 45 per cent of the bargaining unit employees voluntarily signed a petition in support of the application.

The applicants failed to lead evidence regarding the origination and circulation of some signatures, and a key witness who collected signatures did not attend the hearing.

The Board refused to grant an adjournment to allow the witness to be summoned, noting the applicants' failure to issue a summons prior to the hearing.

As the applicants could not establish that the requisite number of signatures were voluntary, the application was dismissed.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act and subsequently sought to add related employer and sale of business applications under sections 1(4) and 63 by way of letter.

The respondents did not attend the hearing.

The Board adjourned the section 1(4) and section 63 applications, finding that the applicant's failure to file the proper forms meant that the required formal notices had not been given to the respondents or their employees.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent taxi company breached sections 15 and 43 of the Labour Relations Act during negotiations for a second collective agreement.

The respondent took the position that the owner-operators and drivers in the bargaining unit were not 'employees', despite a prior Board certificate and collective agreement recognizing them as such.

The respondent also refused the union's demand for a mandatory dues check-off provision under section 43, arguing that the dependent contractors did not receive 'wages' from which dues could be deducted.

The Board held that the respondent's refusal to recognize the employees constituted bad faith bargaining under section 15.

The Board further held that section 43 applies to dependent contractors, interpreting 'wages' broadly to include the compensation or reward they receive, and ordered the respondent to cease its refusal to negotiate an appropriate check-off provision.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection to dismiss a section 68 complaint due to the complainant's delay in filing.

The Board ruled that the complaint would be heard on its merits.

However, due to the delay, the complainant was denied monetary compensation for the period between February 1, 1982, and April 14, 1983.

The respondents were held liable for compensation during a sine die adjournment because they failed to stipulate otherwise as a condition of the adjournment.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer, Nelson Quarry, was attempting to undermine and destroy the union by contracting out work to non-union firms, notably Torres Transport Limited.

The employer raised two preliminary objections: first, that the matter should be deferred to the grievance-arbitration procedure under the collective agreement, and second, that the particulars of the complaint stretched too far back in time.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to defer to arbitration, finding that the allegations involved a potential repudiation of substantive statutory rights under the Labour Relations Act.

However, applying the principle of repose due to delay, the Board exercised its discretion under section 89 of the Act to refuse to inquire into any allegations of improper conduct occurring prior to the 18-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to be re-listed for hearing.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's ambulance service.

The sole issue was whether a supervisor, Mr. Ball, exercised managerial functions under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act and should be excluded from the unit.

The Board found that Mr. Ball's duties were primarily those of a lead hand, with limited supervisory functions such as verifying time cards and routine scheduling.

He did not possess independent managerial discretion regarding hiring, firing, or other significant matters.

The Board concluded he was an employee within the meaning of the Act and included him in the bargaining unit, issuing a formal certificate to the applicant.

The applicant applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union raised preliminary objections that the application was untimely and that the applicant lacked status as an employee in the bargaining unit because he was not hired through the union hiring hall.

The Board dismissed the timeliness objection, accepting the applicant's earlier correspondence as a timely application despite technical defects.

The Board also dismissed the status objection, distinguishing previous case law because the applicant was a long-standing employee hired before the union obtained bargaining rights, not someone hired to avoid collective bargaining obligations.

The matter was directed to be listed for continuation.

The applicant union was previously certified by the Board, but objecting employees were not given notice of the initial hearing.

The objecting employees argued this was a denial of natural justice and requested the proceedings be recommenced.

The Board held a second hearing to allow the objectors to make representations.

The Board found that the objectors' petition would not have affected the union's representative status even if given maximum weight.

As the objectors declined to call evidence or make substantive representations at the second hearing, the Board concluded any prejudice was cured and affirmed its decision to issue the certificates.

The employer applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights under section 59 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the union failed to commence bargaining within sixty days of giving notice.

The Board found that while there was a delay, it was adequately explained by the union representative's health problems and difficulties in forming a bargaining committee.

The Board concluded that the union had actively pursued its bargaining mandate and dismissed the application.