Robert Herman

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the respondent employer breached the collective agreement by employing non-union members to perform bargaining unit work.

The employer argued that following a corporate restructuring, the non-union employees became shareholders and directors, and thus fell within the 'owners and managers' exception in the collective agreement.

The Board found that the employees' duties remained unchanged and did not involve supervising the work of others.

The Board upheld the grievance, finding the employer in breach of the union security and hiring provisions of the collective agreement.

The applicant employer suspended two full-time employees and requested the respondent union to refer replacement employees pursuant to the collective agreement.

The union refused, asserting the employer had no right to suspend the employees.

The employer applied to the Board under section 92 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the union's refusal constituted an unlawful strike or a threat of an unlawful strike.

The Board dismissed the application, finding no actual work stoppage or threat of one, as the suspended employees continued to work and the core dispute was a matter of collective agreement interpretation appropriate for arbitration.

The complainant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to take his discharge grievance to arbitration.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the justness of the discharge had already been adjudicated in a prior complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board agreed, finding that the doctrine of res judicata prevented the complainant from relitigating the discharge against the employer.

The Board further dismissed the section 68 complaint against the union, concluding that the complainant suffered no harm from the union's refusal to arbitrate because he had already obtained an impartial adjudication of his discharge in the prior proceeding.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the respondent employer failed to follow hiring hall procedures for carpentry work.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights.

The Board found that the union had been completely inactive for a 12-year period, including a six-month period prior to the imposition of province-wide bargaining in 1978, despite obvious and extensive construction at the employer's site.

The majority concluded that the union's prolonged inactivity and subsequent attempt to organize the same employees demonstrated an abandonment of bargaining rights prior to the statutory province-wide scheme taking effect.

The application was dismissed.

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 complainant, representing former employees of Massey-Ferguson, alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by negotiating a substandard settlement for termination and severance pay.

The respondent union and the intervener employer moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it did not disclose a prima facie case and that there was extreme delay in filing.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the complainants failed to plead sufficient material facts to establish an arguable case.

Furthermore, the Board exercised its discretion under section 89 to decline to inquire into the complaint due to an unexplained delay of two to three years, which caused extreme prejudice to the parties who had relied on the executed settlement.

The complainant, who was performing sandblasting work, refused to continue working without proper safety equipment after sand got into his eyes.

The employer discharged him for this refusal.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer breached section 24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by discharging the complainant for acting in compliance with the Act.

The employer, who did not appear at the hearing, was ordered to pay $2,100 in compensation for lost wages.

The complainant made a second request for reconsideration of a Board decision that allowed his complaint to be withdrawn following a settlement.

The complainant argued that he was mentally incapacitated at the time he agreed to the settlement and was unable to properly represent himself.

The employer opposed the request, arguing for finality in legal proceedings.

The Board decided to schedule a hearing solely to determine whether it should reconsider its earlier decision based on the complainant's alleged mental incapacity, placing the burden on the complainant to establish his incapacity at the relevant time.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent part-time employees at a single movie theatre owned by the respondent.

The respondent argued that a single theatre was not an appropriate bargaining unit and that the unit should encompass all of its theatres in the region or city to avoid undue fragmentation.

The Board reviewed its jurisprudence on single-branch bargaining units and concluded that, while broader units have advantages, requiring a multi-branch unit would create an obstacle to organizing.

The Board found the single theatre to be an appropriate bargaining unit and granted the certificate.

The employer filed two grievances under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act against individual employees and their respective unions, alleging the employees breached the collective agreement by failing to return tools and improperly receiving subsistence allowances.

The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding arbitrability, proper delivery of the grievances, and delay.

The Board reserved its decision on whether an employer can grieve against individual employees until the merits are heard.

The Board held that delivery of the grievance to the local union satisfied the statutory requirement, and delivery to the individual employees was not required.

However, the Board dismissed the grievance concerning the subsistence allowance due to the employer's unexplained 14-month delay in pursuing the matter.

The applicant unions sought declarations under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that a sale of a business had occurred between K & Z Construction Ltd. and Yola Construction Ltd., or alternatively, that the two companies were related employers under common control or direction.

K & Z had ceased operations due to financial difficulties, and one of its owners subsequently became a part-owner of Yola, an existing business.

The Board dismissed the section 63 application, finding no transfer of a functional economic vehicle.

The Board also declined to exercise its discretion to make a related employer declaration under section 1(4), concluding that doing so would inappropriately extend rather than preserve the unions' bargaining rights, as the new owner brought no meaningful part of K & Z's business to Yola.

The complainants, a group of former employees, alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under the Labour Relations Act regarding settlements obtained following a plant closure.

The Board ruled on several preliminary objections, finding that the Coalition itself was not a proper complainant, and dismissing allegations under sections 50 and 52(5) of the Act.

The Board affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the section 68 complaint despite the involvement of Employment Standards Act entitlements.

Finally, the Board found the complainants had not provided sufficient particulars of the alleged misconduct and directed them to file written particulars before the hearing could proceed.

The applicant applied under section 47 of the Labour Relations Act for an exemption from paying union dues on the basis of his religious beliefs.

The Board found that while the applicant held sincere religious beliefs, his objection to paying dues was actually rooted in his dissatisfaction with how the union became certified and how he believed it would represent employees.

As the objection was not caused by his religious beliefs, the application was dismissed.

The complainant, an environmental technologist, alleged he was discharged contrary to section 134b(2) of the Environmental Protection Act after cooperating with a Ministry of the Environment investigation and refusing to destroy sensitive documents.

The employer claimed he was terminated for failing to return to work from sick leave.

The Board found the employer's reasons were pretextual and that a major reason for the discharge was the complainant's compliance with the Act and provision of information to the Ministry.

The Board ruled the discharge violated the Act and held that damages would be assessed based on actual compensation rather than Employment Standards Act minimums.

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

The union argued that collective bargaining was unsuccessful due to the employer's uncompromising position on benefits without reasonable justification.

The employer refused to maintain the high level of benefits previously enjoyed by the unorganized employees, proposing instead a two-tiered system where new hires would receive lower community-standard benefits.

The Board found that the employer's position was designed to send a message that unionization would cost employees their benefits, which was not a reasonable justification.

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

The complainant filed an unfair labour practice complaint against his union.

In an earlier decision, the Board dismissed most of the complaint but remained seized of the issue regarding the union's publication of a letter retracting its decision to bar the complainant from holding union office.

The union subsequently posted the retraction letter.

The complainant then sought to expand the proceeding to litigate whether the initial decision to bar him from office violated the Labour Relations Act.

The Board declined to inquire into the matter, noting that the penalty had been fully retracted and that litigating a moot issue solely to obtain a declaration of a breach would not serve a useful labour relations purpose.

The remaining aspect of the complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union filed a second application for certification after withdrawing its first application due to employer allegations of non-pay and misconduct regarding membership evidence.

The employer argued the fresh membership evidence in the second application was tainted by the alleged prior misconduct and sought dismissal or a representation vote.

The Board found no evidence of impropriety in the collection of the fresh cards and held that the withdrawal of the first application did not preclude the union from relying on new, untainted evidence.

The Board certified the union, finding it had the requisite support of more than fifty-five percent of the employees.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer argued that the Board's '30-30 rule' should not be applied to exclude certain laid-off employees from the bargaining unit, alleging the union intentionally timed its application to exclude them.

The Board held that the union's reliance on the 30-30 rule was not an abuse of process and that the laid-off employees lacked a sufficient nexus to the workplace at the time of the application.

The Board applied the 30-30 rule, excluding the laid-off employees from the bargaining unit, and scheduled further hearings to address the employer's allegations regarding membership evidence.

The union applied for certification and filed unfair labour practice complaints against the employer.

During the organizing campaign, the employer's president held a captive audience meeting where he threatened employees' job security and tied wage increases to opposition to the union.

The employer also discharged an employee for his union activity.

The Board found that the employer committed numerous unfair labour practices in breach of sections 64, 66, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board concluded that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained and that the union had adequate membership support for collective bargaining.

The Board directed that a certificate issue pursuant to section 8 of the Act and ordered comprehensive remedial relief, including posting and mailing of notices, union access to the plant, and a list of employees.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint.

The Board considered the validity of the union's membership evidence and Form 80 declaration.

The Board rejected two membership cards that omitted the local union number but accepted the Form 80 as proper, noting that the defects were apparent on the face of the cards.

The parties settled the unfair labour practice complaint, agreeing to reinstate certain employees, pay damages, and hold a representation vote.

The Board also determined that a working foreman exercised managerial functions under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act and was therefore excluded from the bargaining unit.