Roman Stoykewych

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent part-time and casual nurses at the responding hospital.

A representation vote was held within five days of the application, resulting in a majority for the union.

The employer challenged the vote, arguing the short timeframe and single voting day provided insufficient notice and access for casual employees.

The Board dismissed this objection, finding the statutory five-day quick vote model applied and the parties' own efforts ensured adequate notice.

On the issue of the bargaining unit description, the Board agreed with the employer that the part-time unit should 'mirror' the historical full-time unit, which was restricted to nurses providing direct nursing care, to avoid serious labour relations harm.

A final certificate was issued for the restricted unit.

The applicant trade union filed an unfair labour practice complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding parties—various receivers and secured creditors of the bankrupt employer—violated section 70 by failing to remit approximately $35,000 in union dues deducted prior to the bankruptcy.

The responding parties raised preliminary objections that the application did not disclose a prima facie case and that the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the receivers and creditors could not be characterized as 'persons acting on behalf of an employer' under section 70.

Furthermore, the Board held that the claim for unremitted dues was a 'claim provable in bankruptcy' and was therefore caught by the stay of proceedings under section 69.3(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant union (OPSEU) filed a work assignment dispute under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, challenging the Hospital's decision to reassign respiratory and cardiac testing work from Cardio-Pulmonary Technicians to Registered Nurses and SEIU members.

The Hospital argued the transfer to a 'point of care' model would improve efficiency and patient care.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the Hospital's decision was made for bona fide operational reasons and that the OPSEU collective agreement did not expressly prohibit the transfer of work out of the bargaining unit.

The applicants, classified employees in the Ontario Public Service, filed applications alleging that their trade union breached its duty of fair representation by agreeing to process their outstanding classification grievances through an expedited mediation-arbitration process without their consent.

The trade union and the employer brought a motion to dismiss the applications for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board found that the trade union had the right to settle or dispose of grievances without the individual applicants' consent, and that the decision to use an expedited process to resolve a long-standing backlog of cases was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The applications were dismissed without a hearing on the merits.

The applicant trade union applied under section 114(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the 'Weekend Editor' is an employee within the meaning of the Act.

The responding party employer argued the position was managerial and that the Board should decline to hear the application due to delay and because the underlying issue would be resolved at arbitration.

The Board declined to dismiss the application, finding no acquiescence by the union and noting that a determination of employee status serves a useful labour relations purpose.

The Board authorized a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the duties and responsibilities of the Weekend Editor.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of registered and graduate nurses.

The parties disputed whether the Discharge Planning Co-ordinator should be excluded from the unit under section 1(3) of the Labour Relations Act due to managerial functions or confidential capacity.

The Board found that while the incumbent did not exercise managerial functions, her regular participation in monthly department managers' meetings exposed her to confidential information regarding the employer's collective bargaining strategies and grievance handling.

Consequently, the Board concluded that her inclusion would create a conflict of interest and excluded the position from the bargaining unit.

The applicant union brought an application under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act concerning the rationalization of rehabilitation services among three hospitals.

The rationalization involved transferring services and employees to a consolidated centre at the responding party hospital, constituting a sale of a business.

The primary issue was whether the seniority of incoming employees should be dovetailed or end-tailed into the existing bargaining unit's seniority list.

The Board found that an intermingling of employees had occurred despite the physical transfers not yet being complete.

The Board ordered that the seniority lists be dovetailed, recognizing the incoming employees' accrued seniority in full, as it provided the most equitable reconciliation of interests and facilitated the rationalization process.

The applicant trade union applied under section 7 of the Labour Relations Act to combine a bargaining unit of maintenance services and plant operations employees with a unit of cleaners.

The employer opposed the combination, arguing that the Board should consider the current government's stated intention to revoke the combination provisions and the declining state of educational sector financing.

The Board rejected these arguments, holding that it must apply the legislation currently in effect and that the combination would promote viable and stable collective bargaining.

The Board directed the combination of the two units.

The applicant trade union sought to withdraw its certification application after the Board identified irregularities in the membership evidence.

The responding party employer objected, arguing that a Vice-Chair sitting alone lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter and that the Board should investigate the alleged fraudulent membership evidence.

The Board held that the Vice-Chair had jurisdiction to sit alone pursuant to section 104(12) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board further declined to litigate the membership evidence issues, noting that the union had withdrawn the application, and dismissed the certification application.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer discharged a key union organizer and supported an anti-union employee committee.

The Board found the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by involuntarily removing the organizer from the workplace and by materially assisting the anti-union group, including facilitating their communications and meeting with their delegation.

Concluding that the employer's illegal conduct made it unlikely that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained, the Board certified the union pursuant to section 9.2 of the Act.

The applicant sought leave to withdraw its application under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act.

The responding party employer requested that the withdrawal be on a 'with prejudice' basis due to expenses incurred and potential unfairness if the matter were resurrected.

The Board declined to require the withdrawal to be 'with prejudice', noting its practice of facilitating settlements and that abuse of process could be raised if a subsequent application is filed.

Leave to withdraw was granted.

The employer applied to combine the 'parts' and 'manufacturing' bargaining units following a corporate reorganization.

The parties agreed on a single collective agreement but could not resolve how to merge the seniority lists.

The employer proposed 'dovetailing' based on date of hire, while the union advanced conflicting positions from the two former units.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board exercised its discretion under subsection 7(5) of the Labour Relations Act to resolve the impasse, adopting the employer's dovetailing proposal as the most equitable resolution that respects the employees' accumulated seniority.

This is the dissenting opinion of Board Member Shamanski regarding a union application concerning the Town of Ajax's takeover of its transit system from Charterways Transportation Limited.

The dissenting member would have found that the Town's hiring of former Charterways employees was a humanitarian act rather than a transfer of an essential element of the business.

The member concluded that section 64.1(1) of the Labour Relations Act did not apply because the transaction occurred prior to January 1, 1993, and would have dismissed the union's application.

The union applied to combine the full-time and part-time bargaining units at a supermarket.

Shortly after, an employee applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights for the full-time unit.

The Board determined that the termination application should be given procedural priority over the combination application to preserve the employees' representation rights.

On the merits of the termination application, the Board found that the petition in support of termination was voluntary, despite the presence of the employer's children in the bargaining unit and the manner in which signatures were collected.

A representation vote was ordered.

The applicants brought an application under sections 1(4) and 64 of the Labour Relations Act following the purchase of several farm co-operatives.

The responding trade unions raised a preliminary constitutional objection, arguing that the Ontario Labour Relations Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicants operated feed mills and seed cleaning mills, which are declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada under the Canada Wheat Board Act.

The Board applied the core/subsidiary integration test and found that the retail and other provincial operations were not sufficiently integrated into the federal works to bring the entire enterprise under federal jurisdiction.

The constitutional objection was dismissed, and the Board assumed jurisdiction to hear the merits of the application.

The applicant trade union alleged that the responding party employer violated section 81.2 of the Labour Relations Act by discharging an employee without just cause prior to the settlement of a first collective agreement.

The employer argued the discharge was justified due to the employee's poor work performance and failure to improve after a 'last chance' warning.

The Board found that while the employee had been careless on several occasions, the 'last chance' warning was an inappropriate escalation of progressive discipline given his prior discipline-free record.

The Board concluded the discharge was without just cause, substituted a written warning, and ordered the employee reinstated with full compensation.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of a business occurred when the Town of Ajax terminated its transit operation contract with Charterways Transportation Limited and directly hired the majority of the former Charterways employees to continue operating the transit system.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that Charterways' business consisted primarily of providing a skilled workforce, which was its most valuable asset.

By acquiring this workforce, the Town transferred to itself an essential element of Charterways' business.

The Board concluded that a sale of a business had transpired within the meaning of section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

Furthermore, the Board held that section 64.1(1) applied because the sale occurred on or after January 1, 1993, allowing for successorship from a federal to a provincial undertaking.

The applicant employer sought to combine the parts and manufacturing bargaining units and requested that their seniority lists be dovetailed.

The responding trade union agreed to the combination but argued for end-tailing the parts unit.

The Board previously directed the combination and ordered the parties to attempt a negotiated resolution of the seniority issue.

As the parties were unable to resolve the matter, the Board scheduled a hearing to adjudicate the outstanding remedial issues under section 7(5) of the Labour Relations Act and directed the parties to file further pleadings.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees at the responding party's restaurant in Ottawa.

The employer argued that the bargaining unit should be restricted to the specific street address rather than extending municipality-wide.

The Board dismissed the employer's objection, applying its policy of granting municipality-wide units where an employer operates a single establishment in the municipality, as the employer failed to demonstrate serious labour relations difficulties.

The Board also accepted an undated membership card after hearing evidence that it was signed within the requisite six-month period.

Finding that more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the bargaining unit were members, the Board ordered a certificate to issue.

The applicant trade union sought a declaration that it was the successor trade union to an association.

The responding party employer argued the association was not a "trade union" under the Labour Relations Act because it permitted managerial employees to be members.

The Board held that the admission of non-employees into membership does not preclude an organization from being considered a trade union under the Act.

The Board directed the parties to a pre-hearing conference to resolve remaining issues.