Robert Herman

The applicant unions filed unfair labour practice complaints and applications for the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration against the responding related employers in the construction industry.

The Board found that the employers breached sections 70 and 72 of the Labour Relations Act by completely refusing to recognize the bargaining authority of the unions and failing to apply an existing collective agreement.

The Board dismissed Local 793's first collective agreement application because it was already bound by a collective agreement, but granted Local 183's application, directing the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration under section 43(2)(d) due to the protracted and entrenched failure of the parties to meaningfully bargain.

The applicant union and responding Crown sought a determination from the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding which services involving court administration and Y2K preparation were 'essential services' under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993.

The Board held that the administration of the courts must continue without disruption during a strike or lock-out, and identified specific court personnel whose roles constitute essential services.

Regarding Y2K preparation, the Board ruled that essentiality requires a project-by-project assessment, directing the parties to negotiate specific projects and allowing the Crown to reapply before a strike or lock-out if necessary.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined several unresolved issues between the union and the employer regarding an essential services agreement under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993.

The Board ruled that the employer may require overtime for essential services, subject to union challenge for abuse.

The Board also held that the parties must negotiate essential work functions, not merely designated positions.

Furthermore, if an employee exercises a work refusal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act due to inadequate staffing levels, the employer may unilaterally increase the number of essential workers to eliminate the unsafe condition, subject to Board review.

The Board also granted union representatives access to all worksites during a strike.

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

The union argued the application was untimely because it was filed with Priority Courier after business hours on the last day of the open period, and because it was not delivered to the union within the required two days.

The Board found the application was filed on time, as the date of filing is the date it is accepted by Priority Courier.

However, the applicant failed to deliver the application to the union within two days of filing as required by the Rules.

The Board declined to relieve against the strict application of the delivery rules, noting the statutory requirement for expedition in termination applications.

The application was dismissed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit structure for the Upper Canada District School Board following restructuring under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The Board ruled that there should be two bargaining units: one for professional student services personnel (PSSP) and one 'all employee' bargaining unit, rejecting a proposal for four separate units.

The parties subsequently filed Minutes of Settlement agreeing to the bargaining unit descriptions and the process for a representation vote.

The Board considered applications under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 regarding the restructuring of bargaining units at Mississauga-Queensway Hospital.

The Board dismissed an objection that the application for the paramedical bargaining unit was premature, finding that the restructuring events provided sufficient reason to proceed despite the potential disruption to existing bargaining rights.

Following the oral ruling, the parties resolved all remaining matters and filed Minutes of Settlement for both the paramedical and service bargaining units.

The Board directed that representation votes be held in accordance with the settlements.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held a consultation regarding a jurisdictional dispute over a work assignment between the Bricklayers and the Operative Plasterers.

The employer had a pre-existing collective agreement with the Bricklayers but voluntarily recognized the Operative Plasterers for the project in question.

The Board determined that the work ought to have been assigned to the Bricklayers, given their pre-existing bargaining rights covering the work, compared to the recently recognized Operative Plasterers.

The related unfair labour practice and construction industry grievance applications were adjourned sine die.

The applicant union brought an application under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 regarding bargaining unit configuration following hospital restructuring.

The Board ruled orally that registered practical nurses (RPNs) would not be included in the nursing bargaining unit due to concerns over mobility rights and potential disruption.

The Board also ruled against a separate trades bargaining unit.

The parties subsequently agreed to three bargaining units: registered and graduate nurses, paramedical employees, and a combined service, office, clerical, and trades unit.

The Board directed the parties to exchange proposed descriptions and appointed a Board Officer to assist with remaining disputes.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), alleging he was terminated in reprisal for seeking short-term disability benefits and requiring accommodation after a car accident.

The employer requested the application be dismissed without a hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding it did not disclose a prima facie case of a reprisal under the OHSA, as the applicant was not seeking to enforce or comply with the Act.

Alternatively, the Board exercised its discretion to decline to inquire, noting the core of the dispute concerned human rights and accommodation, which fall under the Human Rights Code rather than the OHSA.

The applicants alleged that the international union breached section 89 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by continuing to exercise de facto supervision and control over the local union after the initial 12-month trusteeship period had expired without an extension from the Board.

The Board dismissed the application for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board held that under section 89(2), a trusteeship automatically terminates after 12 months unless extended by the Board, and the Board has no jurisdiction under that section to inquire into or regulate de facto control exercised without a legally imposed trusteeship.

The Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen applied under section 154 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to be certified as the exclusive employee bargaining agency for the provincial unit, seeking to oust the International Union from the designated agency.

The Board found that the applicant met the statutory definition of an 'employee bargaining agency' and had standing to apply.

The Board further found that a majority of the affiliated bargaining agents supported the application, and conditionally concluded that they held bargaining rights for a majority of employees, subject to any final representations from the opposing parties.

The Ontario Nurses' Association filed an unfair labour practice complaint against Comcare, alleging that the employer's actions during a lawful strike violated the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union argued that the employer unlawfully intimidated striking nurses by contacting them about their availability, issuing Records of Employment, and terminating their benefits.

The union also alleged that the employer's use and payment of replacement workers constituted unlawful strike-breaking and surface bargaining.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the employer's communications, while 'playing hardball' and intended to bring home the economic consequences of the strike, were not unlawfully intimidating or coercive.

The Board also found that the employer had a rational business reason for its use and payment of replacement workers, and that its actions did not constitute a breach of the Act.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding employer argued that the union never held bargaining rights, or alternatively, that any such rights had been abandoned due to 16 years of inactivity.

The Board found that the employer had granted bargaining rights in 1976 by signing a voluntary recognition agreement.

Furthermore, the Board held that under the province-wide bargaining scheme for the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector, the union had not abandoned its bargaining rights, as abandonment in the ICI sector requires evidence that all affiliated bargaining agents and the employee bargaining agency have abandoned their rights.

The matter was directed to be relisted to address the employer's estoppel argument.

The union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The employer argued it was exempt from the Labour Relations Act under s. 3(c) because its primary business was horticulture.

The Board found the employer's primary business was construction contracting, not horticulture, and dismissed the objection.

The Board then ruled on several challenges to voter eligibility, excluding several employees who were not performing bargaining unit work on the application date, but including one working foreman.

After counting the eligible ballots, the union lost the representation vote.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to proceed with the union's s. 11 application and related unfair labour practice complaint.

The applicant union filed a jurisdictional dispute under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, following a 7-month delay.

The applicant argued the delay was due to a lack of counsel resources and a desire to compile its best case.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the reasons provided did not justify the lengthy delay and that countenancing such a delay would undermine the Board's system for resolving jurisdictional disputes expeditiously.

Four related jurisdictional disputes were filed regarding the assignment of work involving the uncrating, unpacking, and disposal of packaging material for a direct strip mill.

The employer had assigned the work to various trades, and the Labourers grieved the assignment.

The Board held that the uncrating of equipment and the dismantling or disposal of packaging material during the uncrating process was properly assigned to the trades.

However, once the equipment was entirely uncrated, the disposal and clean-up of the remaining packaging material was the work of the Labourers.

The union brought applications alleging unfair labour practices, an unlawful lock-out, and seeking declarations of a sale of business and related employer status following the bankruptcy and subsequent sale of Vulcan Packaging Inc. to a purchasing group.

The Board found that a sale of business had occurred and that the entities constituted a single employer, meaning the collective agreement continued to bind the purchasers.

However, the Board dismissed the unfair labour practice complaints, finding no breach in the employer's failure to disclose financial difficulties during prior negotiations, the issuance of Records of Employment, or the signing of a side agreement requiring wage concessions.

The Board also declined to issue cease and desist relief regarding the alleged unlawful lock-out, concluding that it made labour relations sense to permit continued negotiations over concessions necessary for the plant's economic viability.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the employer discharged two union supporters and granted a wage increase during the statutory freeze period.

The Board found that the employer discharged the two employees primarily because of their support for the union, in breach of sections 70, 72, and 76 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board concluded that the employer's conduct was so invasive and destructive that a representation vote would not likely reflect the true wishes of the employees, and no other remedy would be sufficient to counter the effects of the contraventions.

The Board ordered automatic certification under section 11 of the Act and directed the employer to offer reinstatement and compensation to the discharged employees.

The applicant trade union sought to withdraw its certification application the day before a scheduled second representation vote.

The first vote had been nullified by the Board to protect the secrecy of a single segregated ballot.

The employer requested the imposition of a one-year bar on future applications under section 7(9) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the wishes of the employees had been effectively tested during the first vote and subsequent litigation over voter eligibility.

Consequently, the Board exercised its discretion to impose a one-year bar on the applicant.

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) brought an application alleging that union leaders and organizations breached section 83 of the Labour Relations Act by encouraging protesters to picket TTC sites during the 'Days of Protest', which would cause TTC employees to engage in an unlawful strike.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that verbal statements constitute 'acts' under section 83 and that the provision's restriction on Charter rights of expression and assembly is demonstrably justified.

The Board concluded that two union leaders breached the Act and issued cease and desist orders restricting picketing at TTC access points to ensure employees could work, while dismissing the application against a third leader and the organizations.

A dissenting member argued that section 83 should not apply to political speech and that the restrictions were not justified under the Charter.