Robert D. Howe

The applicant union applied for a work assignment direction regarding the classification of Health Promoter, which the employer had assigned to the responding union's all-employee bargaining unit.

The applicant argued the work should be assigned to its paramedical bargaining unit.

The Board considered the employer's preference, the community of interest, and the interdisciplinary nature of the work.

The Board concluded that it was in the best interests of sound labour relations to sustain the employer's assignment of the Health Promoter classification to the responding union's bargaining unit, avoiding seniority and administrative issues.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification and submitted membership evidence, including ten cards received by mail.

The employer challenged the weight of the mailed cards because the union's Form A-4 declarant did not personally contact the employees to verify they had signed the cards, relying instead only on the fact that the cards were received in sealed business reply envelopes.

The Board held that without further verification or corroborating circumstances, it would not give full evidentiary weight to the mailed cards.

Consequently, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) applied for a declaration under subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that West Lincoln Memorial Hospital and Deer Park Villa constitute a single employer.

ONA sought to have the Hospital's collective agreement apply to nurses at the Villa to avoid an 'ability to pay' argument in an upcoming interest arbitration.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that while the entities were under common control, there was no erosion of bargaining rights or other mischief that subsection 1(4) was designed to remedy.

The Board held that the provision should not be used merely to enhance bargaining rights or secure a tactical advantage in arbitration.

The employer requested reconsideration of a Board decision ordering it to cease using replacement workers during a strike.

The employer sought to resile from its earlier agreement that the union's strike vote complied with the Labour Relations Act, citing newly acquired information about the vote's conduct.

The Board dismissed the request, holding that parties are bound by their agreements and tactical decisions made during hearings, and permitting a party to reopen issues based on after-acquired information would undermine the finality of Board proceedings.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of hostel employees employed by the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

The intervener union argued the application should be dismissed because the applicant's constitution restricted membership to employees of the Crown, its agencies, or private employers, rendering municipal employees ineligible.

The Board found that the municipality was a public sector employer and not a 'private employer' within the meaning of the applicant's constitution.

As the applicant lacked an established practice of admitting persons outside its constitutional eligibility requirements, the application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer contravened section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act by using six individuals to perform bargaining unit work during a lawful strike.

The individuals had been hired or transferred into pre-existing managerial positions after notice to bargain was given, without increasing the overall managerial complement.

The majority of the Board held that the plain language and purposive interpretation of section 73.1 prohibited the employer from using these individuals to perform the work of striking employees, regardless of whether the overall number of managers increased.

The employer was ordered to cease and desist from using the individuals for bargaining unit work.

A dissenting opinion argued this interpretation created an inequity not intended by the Legislature.

The applicant, an owner-operator, filed a complaint alleging the union breached sections 70 and 82(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant alleged the union acted arbitrarily by transferring him to a different pipeline loop and introducing a rotation system.

The Board dismissed this portion of the complaint, finding the union's actions were reasonable and in the best interests of the owner-operators.

However, the Board found the union violated section 82(2) by refusing to accept the applicant's union dues and renew his membership as a penalty for filing the complaint.

The Board ordered the union to compensate the applicant for lost earnings and restore his name to the dispatch list upon payment of dues.

The employer applied for a work assignment direction regarding the classification of Health Promoter.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) and the Association of Allied Health Professionals: Ontario (AAHPO) both claimed jurisdiction over the work.

The Board directed that if the employer elects to use a nurse to fill a Health Promoter position, the position must be included in the ONA bargaining unit, but if it elects to use someone who is not a nurse, the position must be included in the AAHPO bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of Gallup Canada, Inc. in Metropolitan Toronto.

The responding party failed to file a timely reply or raise the exclusion of analysts from the bargaining unit by the terminal date.

The Board declined to permit the responding party to belatedly raise the issue, finding it would prejudice the union.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit and found that more than 55 per cent of the employees in the unit had applied to become members of the union.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to reinstate an employee who was allegedly discharged for his union organizing activities.

The responding party employer contended that the employee was discharged for stealing cigarettes.

The majority of the Board dismissed the application, finding that the potential harm to the employer of reinstating an employee discharged for theft outweighed the financial harm to the employee and the alleged chilling effect on the union's organizing drive, particularly given the delay in bringing the application.

A dissenting Board member would have granted the interim reinstatement.

The union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of employees at Hornco Plastics Inc.'s Whitby plant.

The responding parties argued that Hornco and Horn Plastics Ltd. should be treated as a single employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, and that the appropriate bargaining unit should encompass both the Whitby plant and Horn's Pickering plant.

The Board found that the two plants were highly integrated, with a single payroll, shared management, and significant employee interchange.

The Board exercised its discretion to declare the companies a single employer and found the broader two-plant unit to be appropriate to avoid serious labour relations problems.

As the union had less than forty percent membership support in the broader unit, the application for certification was dismissed.

The Employer, a home for the aged, decided to assign the administration of medications to Registered Nursing Assistants (RNAs) instead of Registered Nurses (RNs) to reduce costs.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) filed a work assignment complaint, arguing this violated Article 2.02 of their collective agreement, which protected work normally performed by the bargaining unit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the Employer's past practice of exclusively assigning this work to RNs since 1974 strongly supported ONA's position.

The Board ordered the Employer to cease assigning the disputed work to RNAs and restore it to the RNs.

The responding party requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision awarding $16,298.10 in damages to the applicant union.

The request was made via letter, alleging the damages amount was wrong.

The applicant opposed the request, noting it was filed beyond the 30-day time limit and lacked sufficient facts.

The Board denied the application for reconsideration because it was not filed in the proper form, was filed late without reasons for the delay, failed to include complete written representations, and raised no issues that could not have been raised at the original hearing.

The United Steelworkers of America applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of Hemlo Gold Mines Inc. A group of employees intervened, seeking to file petitions opposing the union after the application filing date.

The intervenors argued that the Board's rules regarding the certification application date and notice to employees violated the rules of natural justice and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Board dismissed the intervenors' motions, finding that the Labour Relations Act clearly established the application filing date as the certification application date, and that the statutory provisions did not violate the Charter.

The Board also dismissed a motion alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Finding that over 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit had applied to become members of the union on or before the certification application date, the Board certified the union without a representation vote.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent hospital violated the statutory freeze period under section 81(2) of the Labour Relations Act by freezing the anniversary increments of non-unionized employees after the union applied for certification.

The respondent argued that the freeze was part of a broader response to funding constraints and applied to all non-unionized employees, consistent with its past practice of treating all such employees alike.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the respondent's actions maintained the established pattern of operations and fell within the reasonable expectations of employees given the economic circumstances.

A dissenting member would have found a violation, arguing the established pattern was the regular granting of the increments.

The applicant union filed applications for certification to represent taxi drivers operating under the banners of various taxicab brokers in Metropolitan Toronto.

The central issue was whether the drivers were 'dependent contractors' under section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, or independent contractors.

The Board examined the economic relationship between the drivers and the brokers, noting that the drivers derived a substantial portion of their income from dispatched fares and corporate account chits provided by the brokers.

The Board also found that the brokers exercised significant control over the drivers through rules, policies, and the threat of suspension from the dispatch system.

The Board concluded that the drivers were in a position of economic dependence and under an obligation to perform duties for the brokers, more closely resembling the relationship of an employee than that of an independent contractor.

The drivers were therefore found to be dependent contractors.

The applicant union applied for certification of two bargaining units (full-time and part-time) at the respondent's warehouse.

The parties disputed the geographic scope, the exclusion of 'office and sales staff', the specific classifications falling within that exclusion, and the test for determining full-time versus part-time status.

The Board ruled that the geographic scope should be the Township of Westminster and agreed to exclude office and sales staff, finding that the proposed units were appropriate and would not cause serious labour relations problems.

The Board analyzed various classifications, including vault clerks, receiving secretary, inventory auditors, membership clerks, electronic sales, and tire sales, to determine their community of interest.

Finally, the Board declined the union's request to depart from its standard '4/7' test for determining full-time status, finding no special circumstances to warrant a departure.

The hearing was scheduled to continue to address remaining issues and related unfair labour practice complaints.

The applicants applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union argued the decertification petition was not voluntary because it was circulated on company premises during working hours and some employees were told it was merely to keep their options open.

The Board found no evidence of managerial involvement or support for the petition.

The Board concluded the petition was voluntary and directed a representation vote.

The applicant employer association referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board seeking damages against an individual employee who fraudulently claimed and received $11,650 in room and board allowances.

The Board held that while the employee was bound by the collective agreement, the agreement did not empower the Board to award damages against an individual employee.

The request for damages was dismissed, but the Board granted a declaration that the employee had violated the collective agreement by improperly claiming the allowance.

The applicant union sought certification and won a representation vote.

The respondent employer and a group of objecting employees alleged that the union engaged in intimidation and coercion during the vote, including holding a meeting at a Sikh Temple, making religious appeals, and congregating outside the polling area.

The Board found that while union supporters did congregate and electioneer outside the voting area, the evidence did not establish that their conduct was intimidatory, coercive, or destructive of the employees' freedom of choice.

The Board declined to set aside the vote and ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.