Robert D. Howe

The complainant filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

The complainant, a call-in employee, was terminated by the employer for alleged unavailability.

The union president failed to return any of the complainant's numerous telephone calls, did not respond to her letter, and failed to investigate her claims that the employer's records were inaccurate.

The Board found that the union's failure to communicate with the complainant and investigate her concerns was arbitrary and constituted a breach of section 69.

The determination of remedial relief was deferred.

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

The parties agreed that bargaining had broken down solely due to their respective positions, leaving the reasonableness of the employer's position as the only issue.

The employer insisted on a one-month loss of seniority provision for laid-off employees, which would effectively deny recall rights to its seasonal workforce.

The Board found this position to be uncompromising and without reasonable justification, noting the employer's reliance on administrative burden was unpersuasive given its computer systems.

The Board directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer argued the application was barred by a prior voluntary recognition agreement entered into by the parties.

The Board held that while section 5(3) of the Labour Relations Act precludes another trade union from applying for certification within one year of a recognition agreement, it does not prevent the voluntarily recognized union itself from applying for certification.

The Board noted that voluntary recognition does not confer the same statutory rights as certification, such as the right to compel bargaining or access conciliation.

Therefore, the application was not barred.

During a union certification proceeding, the respondent employer sought consent under Rule 72(4) of the Board's Rules of Procedure to adduce evidence of alleged intimidation by a union organizer.

The alleged incidents occurred prior to a representation vote but were not raised by the respondent within the time limits prescribed by the Board's rules.

The Board denied the request, emphasizing the need for expedition in labour relations matters and finding that the respondent had not acted with due diligence in raising the allegations.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of employees at two Midas Muffler locations.

The employer and objectors challenged the union's membership evidence because the receipts lacked the collector's signature, and the objectors filed petitions opposing certification.

The Board held that the membership evidence was valid despite the technical defect, as oral evidence confirmed the collector's identity and the payment of the initiation fee.

The Board also found that the petitions were not voluntary, as they were circulated by employees perceived to be aligned with management and amidst rumours of job losses if the union was certified.

The Board granted the certification application without a representation vote.

One Board member dissented.

The applicants sought a declaration terminating the respondent union's bargaining rights for employees at the intervener's store.

The applicants submitted two petitions in support of decertification.

The Board assessed whether the petitions represented a voluntary expression of the employees' true wishes.

The Board found that the primary applicant was an unreliable witness and that the signatures were obtained in circumstances where employees might reasonably infer management support, particularly given the employer's non-solicitation policy, the posting of a petition on a visible bulletin board, and the involvement of an employee with a close nexus to management.

The Board concluded the applicants failed to establish voluntariness and dismissed the application.

One Board member dissented.

The applicant union sought certification for employees of Air-Dale Limited, an airline subsidiary of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission.

The respondent and objectors raised the issue of constitutional jurisdiction.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that the respondent's operations, which involved providing scheduled air services under a Transport Canada licence, fell squarely within the federal Parliament's exclusive jurisdiction over aeronautics.

Consequently, the provincial Labour Relations Act did not apply, and the application for certification was dismissed.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to provide her with strike pay.

The union allegedly refused because the complainant drove replacement workers and did not picket.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing, finding that the refusal to provide strike pay is an internal union matter that does not involve the representation of an employee in relation to their employer, and therefore falls outside the Board's jurisdiction under section 68.

The applicant employer sought declaratory relief under section 92 of the Labour Relations Act regarding an alleged work slowdown by the respondent union.

The Board dismissed the application, noting that the alleged slowdown had ended nine months before the application was filed and the union's bargaining rights had since been terminated.

The Board held that it would not be in the interests of sound labour relations to grant declaratory relief where a party delays bringing the application until long after the allegedly unlawful conduct has ceased.

The union filed an application under the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act after the Ministry of Natural Resources contracted out the operation of a provincial park campground to a community college.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to grant a declaration.

The Board held that the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act exclusively governs the collective bargaining relationships of community colleges, and the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act does not apply to transfers from the Crown to a community college.

The union applied under the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act, alleging that the Ministry of Natural Resources transferred an undertaking to a partnership contracted to perform a creel survey.

The Board found that the creel survey was an undertaking and that the partnership was an 'employer' within the meaning of the Act, regardless of whether it hired employees.

The Board declared that the undertaking was transferred and the partnership was bound by the collective agreement between the union and the Crown.

The applicant sought to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights for a unit of fishing employees.

The Board found that the petition signed by the employees was not a voluntary expression of their true wishes, as they were motivated by a belief that the employer would financially reward them with increased fishing quotas if they decertified the union.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought directions under section 92 of the Labour Relations Act, arguing that a collective agreement was in place after bargaining unit employees voted to accept the employer's final offer.

The union had conducted the vote but did not recommend acceptance and subsequently refused to sign the agreement, stating the offer was unacceptable to the union's executive.

The Board dismissed the applications, finding that a collective agreement is a contract between the employer and the union, not the employees.

Because the union had not agreed to be bound by the vote results and had not accepted the employer's offer, no collective agreement was in force.

In an application for certification, the applicant union requested that the Board direct the respondent employer to post notices at seventeen different work sites or, alternatively, supply employee addresses for service by mail.

The Board, following its practice for security guards with irregular work patterns or multiple sites, directed the employer to provide a list of employee addresses so that notice of the application could be mailed directly to the affected employees.

The terminal date for the application was extended accordingly.

The United Steelworkers of America applied for certification to represent employees at the respondent's manufacturing plant.

Although the union demonstrated membership support exceeding 55%, a group of objecting employees filed a petition opposing certification, which would normally trigger a representation vote if found voluntary.

The Board determined the petition was not voluntary, as it was circulated by an employee perceived to have managerial authority and following a meeting with an owner that sparked widespread rumours of plant closure if the union succeeded.

Concluding that the signatures were likely influenced by fears for job security and perceived management involvement, the Board declined to order a vote and granted the certificate.

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.

During a hearing on a Charter challenge to section 12 of the Labour Relations Act, the respondents objected to a Board Member sitting on the panel due to comments he made in the Ontario Legislature 20 years prior.

The Board dismissed the bias objection, finding the comments did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Board also ruled that expert evidence concerning the scope of freedom of association in other countries was inadmissible during the section 2(d) phase of the hearing, though the proposed expert was found qualified to testify on comparative European labour law in the section 1 phase.

The applicant filed an application for a declaration that the respondent union no longer represents the employees of the intervener employer.

The respondent union argued the application was untimely.

The Board reviewed section 61(2) of the Labour Relations Act, which governs the timeliness of termination applications following the appointment of a conciliation officer.

The Board found that the application could not be filed before the later of twelve months after the conciliation officer's appointment or thirty days after the Minister's notice not to appoint a conciliation board.

As the application was filed prematurely, it was dismissed as untimely without a hearing.

The union applied for certification and filed unfair labour practice complaints against the employer, alleging interference during an organizing campaign.

The Board found that the employer violated sections 64, 66, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act by interrogating employees, discriminatorily prohibiting union solicitation, and transferring union organizers to isolate them.

However, the Board dismissed the application for certification under section 8, concluding that the employer's contraventions did not create a situation where the true wishes of the employees were unlikely to be ascertained.

The Board ordered remedial relief, including a cease and desist order, a posting, and the provision of an employee list to the union.

The applicant union filed applications under the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act seeking declarations that various contractors who entered into contracts with the Crown to perform forest management work (regeneration surveys and herbicide spraying) were bound by the collective agreement between the union and the Crown.

The Crown argued that the work did not constitute an 'undertaking' and relied on a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision interpreting a similar term in the Quebec Labour Code.

The Board rejected the Crown's argument, finding that the statutory definition of 'undertaking' in the Ontario Act was broader and encompassed the transfer of parts of a Crown program.

The Board granted the applications, declaring the contractors bound by the collective agreement.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the applications.