R. M. Sloan

The complainant and several other professors filed complaints alleging that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 76 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act.

The complaints arose from an ongoing internal political dispute within the local union.

The complainants alleged that the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith by settling compensation issues arising from workload arbitration awards without their consent, by entering into a consent award that restricted who could act as a union steward during grievance meetings, and by negotiating changes to the collective agreement regarding union representation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaints, finding that the union had the legal authority to settle grievances and workload complaints without the individual grievors' consent.

The Board concluded that the union's decisions were based on reasonable grounds, were not improperly motivated, and were a legitimate exercise of its responsibility to manage the grievance process and administer the collective agreement.

The Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 and the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 filed cross-complaints alleging violations of sections 67 and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

The complaints arose from a dispute over the inclusion of certain equipment operator classifications in the respective unions' wage schedules during the negotiation of a landscaping collective agreement.

Both unions brought preliminary motions to dismiss the other's complaint.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed both complaints, finding that neither union had established a violation of section 70, and that the allegations under section 67 were essentially a jurisdictional dispute over work assignments disguised as an unfair labour practice complaint.

The Board held that such disputes should be resolved through the jurisdictional dispute procedures under the Act.

During a union certification hearing, the Ontario Labour Relations Board considered whether to accept a membership card that indicated a $1.00 initiation fee was paid in two places, but had the word 'Nil' written in the confirmation of payment space.

The applicant union sought to introduce viva voce evidence to prove the dollar was paid.

The Board denied the request, reaffirming its longstanding policy that oral evidence is inadmissible to establish the substantive conditions of membership, including the payment of the initiation fee.

A majority of the Board concluded that the inconsistent information on the card created sufficient doubt about the payment, and therefore rejected the membership card.

The employer applied for a declaration of an unlawful strike after the union refused to sign a collective agreement reflecting a final offer that had been accepted in a section 40 vote.

The union argued the bargaining unit only covered marine operations, not woods operations, and challenged the eligibility of several voters.

The Board found that the bargaining unit included both operations and determined the eligibility of disputed voters, concluding the final offer was accepted.

The Board held that the union breached its duty to bargain in good faith by refusing to execute the agreement, but declined to declare the strike unlawful, instead directing the union to sign the agreement.

The applicant union filed a construction industry grievance alleging the respondents failed to hold a mark-up meeting regarding scaffolding erection for elevator construction.

An intervening union requested the Board defer the grievance, arguing it was essentially a jurisdictional dispute over work assignment.

The Board dismissed the request to defer, directing that the grievance proceed to a hearing on whether the collective agreement was breached.

The Board held that while a jurisdictional dispute was at the root of the damages claim, it would be premature to embark on a jurisdictional dispute proceeding before a breach of the collective agreement was established.

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

The parties had previously signed an Officer's Report agreeing that there was one employee in the bargaining unit on the application date.

At the hearing, the union attempted to resile from this agreement, arguing there were no employees in the unit.

The Board held the union to its agreement, emphasizing the importance of settlement documents.

The Board also found the petition supporting the application to be voluntary, despite the applicant's consultation with a fellow employee and the use of a company bulletin board to announce a meeting.

A representation vote was ordered.

The union applied for the arbitration of a first collective agreement under section 40a(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer and an employee seeking termination of bargaining rights requested adjournments, which the Board denied.

When the employer failed to appear at the hearing, the Board proceeded in its absence and settled the first collective agreement based on the union's proposed terms, with modifications to reflect standard first-contract provisions.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Cronkwright Transport Limited and Erie Employee Services Ltd. constituted a single employer.

Cronkwright had previously contracted out shunting work to an independent operator but later transferred the work to Erie, a related corporation under common control.

The Board found that the essential elements of a related employer relationship were present and that the transfer of work to a related entity, rather than an arm's-length contractor, threatened to erode bargaining rights.

The Board exercised its discretion to grant the declaration, binding Erie to the collective agreement.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the application on grounds of delay and the employees' right to free choice.

During an application for certification, the employer and objecting employees raised several allegations of impropriety regarding the union's membership evidence and organizing campaign.

The Board refused to entertain the first set of allegations, finding them untimely under Rule 72 and failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board also refused to hear a second set of allegations because the parties failed to comply with an order to provide specific particulars, including identifying the disputed membership cards.

Finally, the Board denied the employer's request to have a handwriting analyst examine the membership evidence, holding that such access would violate the confidentiality protections under section 111(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

Ultimately, the parties agreed to dismiss the application.

The applicant union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The union argued that the employer's refusal to provide wage data and its uncompromising positions on wages and benefits amounted to a failure to recognize the union's bargaining authority.

The Board found that the employer's refusal to move on its wage position, while simultaneously being willing to grant unilateral summer increases, constituted an uncompromising bargaining position adopted without reasonable justification.

The Board directed the settlement of the parties' first contract by arbitration.

The complainant brought a motion to remove the respondents' counsel, alleging a conflict of interest arising from prior representation.

The Board dismissed the motion, expressing serious doubts about its statutory jurisdiction to regulate the professional conduct of barristers and solicitors, noting that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act protects the right to counsel and specifically exempts lawyers from the tribunal's power to exclude incompetent agents.

Ultimately, the Board declined to entertain the motion on discretionary grounds, finding that the conflict issue was entirely separate from the merits of the duty of fair representation complaint and that determining it would cause undue delay and risk conflicting decisions with the Law Society of Upper Canada or the courts.

The incumbent union and the employer filed a joint application for early termination of their collective agreement.

The intervening union, the United Steelworkers of America, objected to the application, arguing that early termination would eliminate the statutory 'open period' and prejudice its ongoing organizing campaign to displace the incumbent union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, holding that it would not grant early termination where it would abridge the two-month open period guaranteed by the Labour Relations Act and prejudice another union's right to organize.

The employer filed a complaint alleging that the union engaged in an unlawful strike by failing to sign a collective agreement after employees allegedly voted to accept the employer's final offer under section 40 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union challenged the Board's jurisdiction to determine voter eligibility for the section 40 vote, arguing only the Minister could do so.

The Board ruled that it has the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints under the Act and therefore has the authority to determine voter eligibility questions arising from a section 40 vote in order to dispose of the unlawful strike complaint.

The complainant union notified the Board that the respondent employer failed to comply with a previous Board decision ordering the payment of $247,802.56.

The respondent argued that enforcement should be delayed pending a constitutional challenge at the Court of Appeal.

The Board noted that no stay of proceedings had been obtained and that the Court of Appeal had recently dismissed the respondent's appeal.

Finding that the respondent failed to comply with the determination, the Board directed that a copy of the decision be filed with the Supreme Court of Ontario for enforcement pursuant to section 89(6) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees.

The Board previously directed a representation vote and orally ruled that the applicant was a trade union.

In these written reasons, the Board confirmed the applicant's status as a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, noting its history of representing Crown employees and its constitution.

However, as not more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast in the representation vote were in favour of the applicant, the application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The parties agreed on a proposed bargaining unit that differed from the incumbent union's unit by including temporary and salaried employees.

The Board established two voting constituencies—one corresponding to the incumbent's unit and another for the add-on segment—and directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be conducted in each constituency.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees applied under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of the Hamilton-Wentworth Roman Catholic Separate School Board Professional Staff Association following a merger.

A group of audio-visual technicians objected, requesting to be carved out of the bargaining unit.

The Board granted the successor rights declaration, finding that a valid merger had occurred.

The Board dismissed the employees' request, holding that section 62 does not grant the Board jurisdiction to amend the composition of a bargaining unit, which must be acquired intact by the successor union.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of electricians.

The respondent employer objected, arguing that the union's provincial collective agreement discriminated on the basis of age by providing preferential treatment to older workers, contrary to the Human Rights Code and section 13 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board denied the Ontario Human Rights Commission intervener status.

The Board found that the impugned provisions, which provided job security and preferred access to less physically demanding jobs for older members, did not constitute prohibited discrimination but were reasonable accommodations.

The Board also resolved a dispute over an employee's inclusion in the bargaining unit and ultimately granted the certification.

The respondent union complained by letter about the conduct of a Labour Relations Officer designated to conduct an inquiry and requested directions from the Board.

The Board declined to intervene, noting that Practice Note No. 4 establishes the procedure for such inquiries and that an Officer has discretion within those parameters.

The Board held that it would be inappropriate to intervene in the midst of the inquiry, as the proper time to rule on such objections is after receiving the Officer's report and the parties' submissions on it.

The union's requests were denied without prejudice to its right to raise the objections at the proper time.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The Board held a hearing to address the respondent's legal name, allegations regarding membership evidence, and the reliability of the Form 9 declaration.

The Board found that the Form 9 declaration was reliable, as the declarant had made adequate inquiries regarding the collection of membership cards and fees.

However, following the counting of the pre-hearing representation vote, not more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant.

The application for certification was therefore dismissed.