R. O. MacDowell

The applicant local union sought interim relief in connection with an unfair labour practice complaint, requesting an order directing the respondent employer to remit union dues to the local's officers rather than the trustee appointed by the parent union.

The local had purportedly disaffiliated from the parent union, which responded by placing the local under trusteeship.

The employer, caught in the middle, placed the dues in trust.

The Board dismissed the application for interim relief, finding that the local had not made out an arguable case that the trusteeship or the employer's neutral stance constituted an unfair labour practice, and that the Board should not use its interim powers to confirm a dubious disaffiliation process.

The employer filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the union breached its duty to bargain in good faith by submitting new and previously withdrawn items to a first contract arbitration board.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that interest arbitration is a substitute for bargaining and the statute does not restrict arbitration submissions to items previously negotiated.

The Board also declined to exercise its discretion to inquire into the complaint, noting the arbitration board had already assumed jurisdiction and ruled on the disputed items.

The 27 complainants, unsuccessful applicants for a supervisory position at Ontario Hydro in 1990, alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by withdrawing their group grievances in 1992.

The union and the employer (as intervenor) raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board should decline to inquire into the complaint due to delay, the fact that a parallel complaint by another unsuccessful applicant had already been dismissed, and the practical impossibility of providing a meaningful remedy years after the fact.

The Board agreed, exercising its discretion under section 91 to dismiss the complaint without a full hearing on the merits.

The applicant, a union member, filed a complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act during the negotiation and ratification of a third shift agreement at the General Motors Oshawa truck plant.

The applicant also alleged that the union and company intimidated potential witnesses in violation of section 82.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union's conduct was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and that the ratification process was consistent with past practice.

The Board also found no evidence to support the allegations of intimidation.

The applicants, employees of General Motors, filed a complaint alleging that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

They claimed the union misled them regarding early retirement options and failed to vigorously pursue grievances when they attempted to rescind their irrevocable retirement applications.

The Board found no evidence of misrepresentation, noting that the new buyout option was not intended for employees who had already accepted previous retirement packages.

The Board also held that the union's refusal to process grievances it deemed meritless was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The complaint was dismissed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board imposed a moratorium on processing and scheduling new jurisdictional dispute applications involving Ontario Hydro and various unions.

The Board noted the dispute was extensive, escalating, and involved potentially 200 or more similar work claims.

To construct a more economical and expeditious resolution, the Board relieved responding parties from strict compliance with the Rules respecting Replies and adjourned related proceedings pending a review of the general situation.

The union applied to have the Board address transitional issues arising from a previous order combining a newly-certified bargaining unit with an existing one.

The union argued that the terms of the existing collective agreement should automatically apply to the newly added employees, requiring minimal bargaining.

The employer argued that the new classifications had different hours, wages, and benefits, necessitating substantive negotiations to avoid anomalies.

The Board declined to make a direction under section 7(5) of the Labour Relations Act, finding that the parties had not engaged in meaningful collective bargaining to resolve the transitional issues themselves.

The Board directed the parties to assume the responsibilities of collective bargaining before seeking Board intervention.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party security services company.

The parties disagreed on the bargaining unit description, specifically whether it should include 'all employees' or just 'security guards', and whether the geographic scope should be the Regional Municipality of Sudbury or the broader District of Sudbury.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board accepted the union's proposed 'all employee' unit, noting the relaxation of legislative restrictions on security guards.

The Board also accepted the union's geographic scope of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury, finding it to be an appropriate unit that would not generate serious labour relations problems.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a site-specific bargaining unit of employees at a single movie theatre complex.

The responding party employer argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should encompass multiple theatres in the Metropolitan Toronto area to avoid fragmentation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the site-specific bargaining unit was appropriate for collective bargaining, consistent with previous Board decisions.

As the union demonstrated support from more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the unit, the Board ordered that a certificate issue.

The union applied for certification of a group of unrepresented employees at the Salvation Army's Mental Health Services in Metropolitan Toronto, and sought to combine this new unit with an existing unit it already represented.

The employer argued for four separate bargaining units based on location and function.

Applying the Hospital for Sick Children test, the Board found the union's proposed comprehensive unit appropriate, noting it avoided the labour relations problems associated with fragmentation.

Following certification, the Board ordered the combination of the new and existing bargaining units on the agreement of the parties.

The applicant union sought an interim order declaring it the successor union and exclusive bargaining agent for employees in over 200 pending successor rights applications.

The applications arose from a massive inter-union dispute following the purported merger of various Ontario locals of the RWDSU with the Steelworkers, which was contested by the RWDSU International and the UFCW.

The dispute caused widespread confusion and collective bargaining paralysis, prompting employers and the Minister of Labour to seek clarification on which union to deal with.

The Board granted the interim order, declaring the Steelworkers as the interim exclusive bargaining agent to preserve orderly labour relations and allow the collective bargaining process to function until the main applications are resolved.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer contravened section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act by using replacement workers during a lawful strike.

The employer used an assistant manager to operate projection equipment and later to supervise an apprentice projectionist.

The Board found that the assistant manager's initial operation of the equipment violated the Act.

Furthermore, the Board held that supervising an apprentice projectionist constitutes bargaining unit work, and the employer's use of the assistant manager for this purpose also contravened section 73.1.

The Board issued a cease-and-desist direction.

The applicant filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer contravened section 67 of the Labour Relations Act by issuing a one-day suspension.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to inquire into the complaint, finding that the dispute primarily concerned work practices and regulations rather than the exercise of statutory rights.

Noting that the parties had an established collective bargaining relationship and that an arbitrator had broader jurisdiction to resolve the issues under the collective agreement, the Board deferred the matter to arbitration and adjourned the application sine die.

The complainant filed a complaint alleging that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by settling her grievance regarding an involuntary transfer to part-time status rather than proceeding to arbitration.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union acted in good faith, considered the merits of the grievance, and reasonably concluded that arbitration was unlikely to succeed or benefit the complainant.

The complaint was dismissed.

The Board considered an application for interim relief in a successor rights dispute involving competing claims by the Steelworkers, the UFCW, and the RWDSU over the representation of employees at New Dominion/A & P stores.

The unions were unable to agree on how to conduct their affairs while the matter was pending.

To preserve orderly labour relations and ensure employees had continued representation by familiar individuals, the Board granted an interim order maintaining the status quo as of July 10, 1993, allowing local store managers to continue dealing with the union representatives they customarily dealt with prior to the dispute.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the union's bargaining rights shortly after a previous termination application was dismissed.

The union argued that the multiple applications constituted an abuse of process that interfered with collective bargaining.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 105(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act to refuse to entertain the application, finding that the union had not been given a reasonable opportunity to pursue collective bargaining free from continuous challenges.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was barred from filing any new termination application for a period of six months.

The union applied for certification to represent security guards employed by the responding party.

The parties disagreed on the description of the bargaining unit.

The union proposed a municipality-wide unit, while the employer argued for a site-specific unit limited to the single location where it currently operated in the municipality.

The Board followed its established practice for single-location operations and determined that a municipality-wide bargaining unit was appropriate.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicants sought a declaration under sections 64 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the responding parties were a single employer or that a sale of business had occurred.

The responding parties failed to file a response or participate in the proceedings.

The Board deemed the uncontradicted facts in the application to be accepted and declared the responding parties to be one employer for the purposes of the Act, bound by the collective agreement.

The applicant union sought an interim order reinstating two discharged employees pending the final disposition of an unfair labour practice complaint.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the interim reinstatement and directed the responding employer to post a notice to employees regarding their rights under the Labour Relations Act.

Formal reasons were to follow.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging that the employer, Grant Development Corporation, laid off all employees known or believed to be union supporters upon learning of the certification application.

Grant argued that the Band was the true employer and that the layoffs were due to a lack of work and a commercial dispute.

The Board found that Grant was the true employer, as it exercised fundamental control over the workers.

The Board further found that the mass layoff was motivated by anti-union animus, violating the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the aggrieved employees with compensation and granted the union certification under both section 7(2) and section 8 of the Act.