R. M. Sloan

In a dissenting opinion regarding an application for certification, Board Member Seville disagreed with the majority's finding that a single-store bargaining unit was inappropriate.

The majority had concluded that the employer's 11 fast-food franchise locations were functionally integrated, particularly regarding the production of baked goods, and that a single-store unit would cause serious labour relations problems.

The dissent argued that the Board lacked sufficient evidence regarding the separate corporate structures of each store and the parent franchisor to properly assess functional integration.

The dissent further contended that the production relationship did not preclude a single-store unit and that requiring an 11-store bargaining unit created an unreasonable impediment to the employees' right to organize.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration alleging the responding party Bank violated the collective agreement by subcontracting carpentry work to a non-union contractor on a Sheppard Avenue project.

The Bank argued it was estopped from applying the agreement based on a prior Board decision (the Davie decision), which held that the Bank was not required to apply the agreement to contracts entered into before May 3, 1995.

The Board found that while the bidding process and selection occurred before May 3, 1995, the formal commercial contract was not executed until May 17, 1995.

Therefore, the estoppel did not apply, and the Bank was bound by the collective agreement for this project.

The grievance was allowed, with one member dissenting.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the responding party's bargaining rights.

The responding party raised preliminary objections regarding the timeliness of the application and the failure to properly deliver it prior to filing.

The Board found that under the new Interim Certification and Termination Rules, applications are deemed filed on the date they are received by the Board, not the date they are sent by registered mail.

Because the application was received after the collective agreement had expired, it was untimely.

The application was dismissed, with one Board Member dissenting.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at the responding party's store.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that more than 40% of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board ordered a representation vote.

The responding party argued that the application should be dismissed due to a one-year bar imposed on a prior application by a related local union, and requested that the ballot box be sealed pending determination of this issue.

The majority of the Board directed that the ballots be counted, with the bar issue to be dealt with later if necessary.

One Board member dissented, arguing the ballot box should remain sealed until the bar issue was decided.

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

The union filed a counter-application alleging the employer initiated the termination application and interfered with the union's representation rights.

The Board found that the employer's principal officer had created a climate of antagonism against the union and had explicitly requested the applicant to bring the decertification application.

Concluding that the employer initiated the application within the meaning of section 63(16) of the Labour Relations Act, the Board exercised its discretion to dismiss the termination application.

The Board also found the employer violated section 70 of the Act by unduly influencing the employee.

The union applied for automatic certification under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the employer committed unfair labour practices during an organizing campaign.

The employer actively promoted an alternative 'staff association' and indefinitely suspended the lead inside union organizer for conducting union business on company time.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the employer's conduct violated sections 70, 72, and 76 of the Act.

The Board concluded that the cumulative effect of the employer's actions created a climate where a representation vote would not likely reflect the true wishes of the employees.

Consequently, the Board granted automatic certification without a vote.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit comprised exclusively of the food and beverage staff at a public golf and country club.

The employer argued that the appropriate unit should be an 'all employee' unit, including pro shop and grounds maintenance staff, due to the functional integration of the club's operations.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the golf club operated as a highly integrated enterprise, with significant coordination and shared duties among the various departments.

The Board concluded that carving out a departmental bargaining unit for the food and beverage staff would cause undue fragmentation and serious labour relations problems.

Consequently, the proposed bargaining unit was deemed inappropriate, and the union withdrew its application with leave of the Board.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of stage employees at the Grand Theatre Centre of Sudbury.

The only issue in dispute was whether the stage hands were employees or independent contractors.

Applying the eleven-factor test from Algonquin Tavern, the Board found that the stage hands did not exhibit entrepreneurial activity, were paid standard rates, and worked under the ultimate control of the theatre's principal.

The Board concluded they were employees, not independent contractors, and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the responding party was a successor employer under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

The responding party had leased the premises and equipment of a former timber mill from the predecessor employer, which had been closed for approximately two years.

The responding party argued it was a research operation, not a production operation like the predecessor.

The majority of the Board found that the responding party had acquired and revived part of the predecessor's business, as it used the same premises and machinery to produce similar wood products.

The Board declared that the union's bargaining rights continued with the responding party.

One Board member dissented, arguing there was no existing business to sell.

In an application for certification, the employer argued that two biomedical engineers should be excluded from the bargaining unit pursuant to section 6(4) of the Labour Relations Act, despite not holding licences under the Professional Engineers Act.

The employer contended that 1993 amendments to the Labour Relations Act broadened the category of persons considered engineers.

The majority of the Board rejected this argument, holding that the historical requirement for an individual to be a licensed engineer in Ontario remains applicable.

As the individuals were unlicensed, they were not engineers for the purposes of section 6(4) and were not excluded from the bargaining unit.

A dissenting opinion argued that the statutory amendments removed the strict licensing requirement.

The applicant union alleged a sale of a business from Ontario Place Corporation to MCA Concerts Canada, claiming MCA was bound by a collective agreement as a successor employer.

The Board determined as a preliminary issue whether a collective bargaining relationship existed between the union and Ontario Place Corporation.

The Board found that the historical arrangement for supplying stagehands and lighting personnel was a sub-contracting relationship for specialized technical services, not a collective bargaining relationship.

The letter agreements lacked standard collective agreement language and were seasonal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The applicant union filed complaints alleging the responding employers violated the Labour Relations Act by using replacement workers during a strike.

The employers objected that the union had not held a valid strike vote under subsection 73.1(2)2.

The union had conducted a single strike vote among employees of all employers bound by the terms of an unaccredited employers' association collective agreement.

The Board held that the voting constituency was improper because the employees did not all face the same prospect of a strike, as individual employers could withdraw from the association bargaining.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant, who operated an insulation business with his wife, applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

The union brought a non-suit motion, arguing the applicant was a principal of the company and that the application was not voluntary.

The Board granted the non-suit motion and dismissed the application, finding that even if the applicant were considered an employee, the decision to bring the application was made jointly with his wife, who managed the business.

Therefore, the application did not represent a voluntary expression of employee wishes free from management influence.

The union applied to combine a newly certified maintenance bargaining unit with two pre-existing units (a craft unit of pressmen and a departmental unit of truck drivers) at the employer's newspaper operation.

The employer opposed the combination, arguing that section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act precluded combining a craft unit with non-craft units.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the mandatory nature of section 6(3) at the point of certification does not override the Board's discretion to combine units under section 7.

Finding that the combination would facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining and reduce fragmentation without causing serious labour relations problems, the Board ordered the three units combined.

One Board member dissented.

The applicant union applied for certification.

During the hearing, it was revealed that the union's main organizer had signed membership cards as a 'witness' without actually observing the employees signing them.

The employer and objecting employees argued this irregularity, along with allegations of intimidation and coercion by the organizer, should invalidate the membership evidence.

The Board found that the organizer's misrepresentation on the cards was innocent and did not undermine the reliability of the evidence.

The Board also dismissed the allegations of intimidation, finding no objective basis for them.

The Board certified the union, with one member dissenting on the reliability of the membership evidence.

The union applied to combine the full-time and part-time bargaining units at a supermarket.

Shortly after, an employee applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights for the full-time unit.

The Board determined that the termination application should be given procedural priority over the combination application to preserve the employees' representation rights.

On the merits of the termination application, the Board found that the petition in support of termination was voluntary, despite the presence of the employer's children in the bargaining unit and the manner in which signatures were collected.

A representation vote was ordered.

During a hearing for a union certification application and unfair labour practice complaint, an issue arose regarding the witnessing of union membership cards.

The union requested the Board not inquire further into the issue.

The Board ruled it would hear evidence on the witnessing of the cards but declined to conduct a broad inquiry into the Form A-4 declaration, citing the need to protect the secrecy of membership evidence under section 113 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also admitted new evidence from objecting employees regarding additional cards, despite late disclosure, but adjourned that portion to allow the union time to prepare.

In a union certification application, the parties disputed whether lead hands, linemen, and senior deburrers should be excluded from the bargaining unit.

The employer failed to file particulars, so the Board proceeded based on the union's statement of facts.

The Board found that the disputed employees did not exercise managerial functions under section 1(3) of the Labour Relations Act, as their involvement in discipline and scheduling was limited and infrequent.

The Board also rejected the argument that they lacked a community of interest with the rest of the bargaining unit, noting that minor differences in working conditions do not create serious labour relations problems.

A final certificate was issued to the union.

The employer, Algoma University College, filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of library reference desk duties and library tours.

The work had been assigned to members of both the Staff Association and the Faculty Association.

The Board found that the work was normally performed by members of both associations and that there was a clear overlap in jurisdiction.

Considering past practice, area practice, and factors of economy and efficiency, the Board confirmed the employer's assignment of the disputed work to members of both associations.

The applicant, Ensign Security Services Inc., acquired security contracts at three sites in Ottawa previously held by Pinkerton's and Burns.

The United Steelworkers of America held bargaining rights for the predecessor employers' employees, while the Canadian Security Union held municipal-wide bargaining rights for Ensign's employees.

Ensign applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under sections 64 and 64.2 of the Labour Relations Act to resolve the conflict in bargaining rights resulting from the intermingling of employees.

The Board found that section 64.2 acts as a doorway to section 64, and does not mandate site-specific bargaining rights that override broader-based rights.

To avoid severe fragmentation and administrative difficulties, the Board declared that Ensign is no longer bound by the predecessor's collective agreement with the Steelworkers, and that the Canadian Security Union is the bargaining agent for all Ensign security guards in the region.