Robert J. Herman

The applicant employee association applied for certification.

The intervener union challenged the application, alleging improprieties in the membership evidence and the Form 9 declaration, as well as employer interference.

The Board found that the Form 9 declarant did not make the necessary reasonable inquiries and that the amended Form 9 contained material misrepresentations regarding the collection of membership cards and fees.

Consequently, the Board rejected the Form 9 declarations as improper and unreliable.

Without a valid Form 9, the membership evidence was given no weight, and the application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether an individual was an 'employee' or excluded due to managerial functions.

The respondent employer argued the Board should decline to inquire because the union had agreed to exclude the individual during the prior certification proceeding.

The Board held that omitting an individual from the employer's schedules does not constitute a binding agreement on their employee status.

Finding no clear agreement that the individual exercised managerial functions, the Board appointed a Board Officer to inquire into the individual's duties and responsibilities.

The union applied for certification of an 'all employee' bargaining unit at a nursing home, including graduate and registered nurses.

The employer objected, arguing that past Board practice and community of interest required excluding nurses from service units.

The Board found that past practice in the nursing home sector was not invariable and that the employer provided no specific facts or evidence to demonstrate that including the nurses would cause serious labour relations problems or that they lacked a community of interest with other employees.

The Board concluded the proposed units were appropriate and included the nurses.

A dissenting member argued that established Board precedent required separating nurses from service employees.

The Ottawa Newspaper Guild applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of approximately 13 employees in the computer information services department of The Ottawa Citizen.

The employer opposed the application, arguing that a tag-end unit or a combined unit with the advertising department was appropriate.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employees in the computer information services department shared a sufficient community of interest to form a viable bargaining unit.

Given the employer's long history of fragmented, departmental bargaining units without serious labour relations difficulties, the Board concluded that the proposed departmental unit was appropriate and granted the application.

Three employees filed complaints alleging they were discharged for raising safety concerns, contrary to section 24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The employer maintained they were discharged for leaving their work areas without authorization to conduct safety inspections and disrupting other employees.

The Board found the employer did not breach the Act, as the discharges were motivated by the employees' insubordination and disruption of work, not their safety complaints.

However, exercising its jurisdiction under section 24(7) to review the penalties, the Board upheld the discharge of one employee who had ignored a prior written warning, but substituted five-day suspensions for the other two employees who had not received clear warnings about their conduct.

In an application for decertification, a representation vote was held resulting in a tie, with five segregated ballots.

The Board convened a hearing to determine the eligibility of the five individuals who cast the segregated ballots.

The parties agreed one ballot should be destroyed.

The Board held that the employer could not resile from its prior representation that two employees were outside the bargaining unit, and their ballots were destroyed.

The Board found the remaining two employees were eligible to vote and directed their ballots be counted, rejecting the union's argument that the employer was estopped by its conduct outside the Board proceedings.

The union grieved the employer's refusal to rehire a fully qualified tradesman who had been properly referred through the union hiring hall.

The employer refused to rehire the grievor solely because he had failed to reimburse the employer $46.00 for a lost welding jacket from a previous period of employment.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the collective agreement did not give the employer an unfettered right to reject rehires, but only a right to reject based on competency or qualifications.

Even if an implied residual discretion existed, the employer acted unreasonably by using the hiring hall referral mechanism to unilaterally enforce a debt collection, contrary to the policy against unilateral wage deductions reflected in the Employment Standards Act.

The grievance was allowed and compensation ordered.

The applicant union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the respondent restaurant employer.

During the union's organizing campaign, the employer's managers held one-on-one meetings with employees, questioning them about the union, and distributed gratuitous bonus cheques to compensate for lost tips due to ongoing renovations.

An employee subsequently circulated a petition opposing the union.

The Board found that the petition was not a voluntary expression of employee wishes, as the employer's actions created an environment where employees would reasonably perceive management opposition and surveillance.

The Board also held that the employer's interrogations and the timed payment of bonuses during individual meetings constituted undue influence and interference in violation of sections 64 and 66(c) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board certified the union and ordered the employer to post a notice of its violations.

During a hearing for a decertification application, the intervener employer brought a motion requesting that the panel and the entire Board disqualify themselves on the grounds of bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The motion was based on the Board's decision to raise the issue of the applicant's status and its direction that the employer proceed first to lead evidence regarding the circumstances of hiring.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that inquiring into the applicant's status was part of its statutory mandate under section 57 of the Labour Relations Act, and that directing the employer to lead evidence first was a procedural decision aimed at fairness and expedition, which did not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The union filed complaints alleging the employer violated the statutory freeze provisions of section 79 of the Labour Relations Act.

Following the union's application for certification, the employer, which had recently been acquired by a new parent company, unilaterally changed the date of the annual wage increase, cancelled an existing profit-sharing plan, implemented a new incentive plan for only a portion of the bargaining unit, and lowered starting rates for certain classifications.

The Board applied the 'reasonable expectations' test and found that the employer's actions violated the statutory freeze, as employees reasonably expected the continuation of uniform treatment, the profit-sharing plan, and the historical timing of wage increases.

The Board deferred remedial orders to allow the parties to negotiate a resolution.

The applicant employer applied under section 59 of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration terminating the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union had served a notice to bargain but failed to commence negotiations for approximately twelve months, offering no valid explanation other than having forgotten about the bargaining unit.

The Board found that the union had slept on its bargaining rights without reasonable excuse, prejudicing the employees.

The Board ordered a representation vote to determine if the employees still desired to be represented by the union.

The applicant employee applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The Board examined the voluntariness of the petition signed by employees in support of the application.

The Board found that the applicant had misrepresented to employees that he had a confidential source indicating that previous benefits would be reinstated if the union was decertified, leading employees to perceive a link with management.

Consequently, the Board concluded the petition was not voluntary and dismissed the application.

A dissenting board member would have ordered a representation vote.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer committed unfair labour practices by attempting to promote an employee out of the bargaining unit to pay him a higher wage than provided in the collective agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employee's duties had not substantially changed and he did not exercise managerial functions.

The Board held that the employer violated sections 64 and 67 of the Labour Relations Act by bargaining directly with the employee to circumvent the collective agreement.

The Board ordered the employee reinstated to the bargaining unit and directed the employer to remit back union dues and post a notice of its violations.

The complainants alleged that the respondent union and its officials violated sections 3, 68, 70, and 72(5) of the Labour Relations Act by conducting union meetings unconstitutionally, disciplining the complainants, and denying them the right to vote in a strike vote.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the section 68 complaint because it did not involve representation with an employer.

The section 72(5) complaint was dismissed because section 149a governed ICI sector strike votes and required complaints to be made to the Minister within ten days.

The section 70 and section 3 complaints were dismissed for failing to plead a prima facie case of intimidation or coercion.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent plumbers and steamfitters employed by the respondent in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector.

The respondent employer requested that 'gas fitters' be explicitly included in the bargaining unit description, arguing they shared a community of interest and worked integrally with the plumbers and steamfitters.

The Board held that under section 144(1) of the Labour Relations Act, it could not describe a bargaining unit in the ICI sector that included trades or employees not covered by the relevant designation orders and provincial agreement.

Since gas fitters were not covered by the plumbers' and steamfitters' designation or provincial agreement, they could not be included in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the respondent travel agency.

The respondent challenged the Ontario Labour Relations Board's jurisdiction, arguing its business of assembling and selling international and interprovincial package tours fell under federal jurisdiction as either integral to a federal work or undertaking (air/rail travel) or as an extra-provincial undertaking itself.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the respondent's business was not integral to the operation of an air or rail service, but rather utilized those services for its own customers.

Furthermore, the Board held that the respondent was not engaged in an extra-provincial undertaking, as its primary business was assembling and selling tours within Ontario, and the extra-provincial services were performed by contracted third parties.

The Board affirmed its jurisdiction and directed the matters to be relisted for hearing on the merits.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer bargained in bad faith contrary to section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to table a monetary offer and by insisting to impasse on a clause allowing discharge without just cause upon payment of severance.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union had never requested a monetary offer.

Regarding the discharge clause, the Board held that it does not monitor the content of bargaining proposals unless they are illegal or indicate surface bargaining.

Since a clause permitting discharge without cause is not per se illegal, the employer's insistence on it did not violate the duty to bargain in good faith.

The applicant sought a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The Board assessed whether the petitions signed by employees represented their voluntary wishes.

The Board found that the active involvement of the general manager's wife in the origination and circulation of the petitions would have led employees to reasonably perceive that management had a vested interest in the termination of bargaining rights and would be aware of who signed.

Consequently, the Board concluded the petitions were not voluntary and dismissed the application.

The complainant filed a section 89 complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by withdrawing his discharge grievance without notifying him.

The complaint was filed over three years after the grievance was withdrawn.

The complainant attributed the delay to incorrect advice from his legal counsel, who told him to await the outcome of his criminal proceedings and a similar arbitration involving another employee.

The Board declined to inquire into the complaint, finding that the extreme delay was unjustified and that the respondents, who were not responsible for the delay, would suffer significant prejudice if the matter proceeded.

The applicant, a Quebec-based union, applied for certification to represent employees in Ontario.

The respondent challenged the applicant's status as a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, arguing it had not followed proper steps in its formation, had discriminatory constitutional provisions, and lacked a viable presence in Ontario.

The Board found that the applicant had taken the necessary steps to establish itself as a trade union, that its constitutional provisions did not preclude such a finding, and that it was capable of carrying out the functions of a trade union in Ontario despite its headquarters being in Quebec.

The applicant was found to be a trade union within the meaning of the Act.