Roman Stoykewych

In an ongoing certification application, the applicant union was certified on an interim basis pending the determination of the employee status of a Discharge Planning Co-ordinator.

Following a Board Officer's examination and the submission of written representations, the responding party employer requested an oral hearing to make further submissions.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the request, finding that the detailed written submissions were sufficient to make a full and fair determination without an oral hearing.

The applicant trade union sought certification for employees at a Canadian Tire outlet.

Objecting employees challenged the constitutionality of section 8(4) of the Labour Relations Act, which precludes the Board from considering post-application evidence of employees revoking union support, arguing it violated their Charter rights to freedom of expression, association, and equality.

The Board dismissed the Charter challenges, finding any infringement of expression was justified under section 1, and rejected claims of defective membership evidence based on alleged misrepresentations by rank-and-file organizers.

The Board also affirmed the appropriateness of the union's proposed 'all employee' bargaining unit and determined that a department manager did not exercise sufficient managerial authority to be excluded from the unit.

The applicant trade union alleged that the employer discharged two internal union organizers during an organizing drive for reasons related to their trade union activities, in violation of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the employer's explanations for the discharges were implausible and that the decisions were tainted by anti-union animus.

The Board also found that the employer's subsequent work assignments upon the employees' interim reinstatement were discriminatory and constituted further violations of the Act.

The Board ordered the permanent reinstatement of the employees with compensation for lost wages.

The applicant sought certification as the bargaining agent for employees of the responding party, seeking to displace the incumbent union.

As the applicant had not previously established its status as a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, a hearing was held.

The intervenor argued that the applicant failed to strictly follow the Board's five-step procedure for establishing trade union status, specifically regarding the ratification of its constitution and quorum requirements.

The Board found that the applicant substantially complied with the requirements, noting that the employees' actions at the organizational meeting demonstrated a clear intention to form a trade union and be bound by its constitution.

The Board concluded that the applicant is a viable organization capable of carrying out its statutory obligations and declared it a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Act.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of employees at the responding party's Barrie operation.

The employer requested a bar or a representation vote, alleging the union manipulated the process by withdrawing an earlier application and refiling to avoid a vote.

The Board found no abuse of process and declined to order a vote.

The employer also argued the bargaining unit should be restricted to its 'Edwards Unit' division.

The Board rejected this, applying its policy of granting municipal-wide certificates without divisional restrictions where only one division operates in the municipality, to protect bargaining rights.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

During a hearing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the applicant requested the production of a Pay Equity Report referenced by the responding party's witness.

The responding party objected on the grounds of relevance and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA).

The Board directed the production of the report, finding it potentially relevant to the issues in dispute and noting that section 51 of MFIPPA explicitly preserves the power of tribunals to compel the production of documents.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at General Signal Limited.

The parties agreed that the unit should include both full-time and part-time employees pursuant to section 6(2.1) of the Labour Relations Act, but disagreed on whether summer students should be included.

The employer argued that the omission of summer students from section 6(2.1) meant they should be excluded, while the union argued for their inclusion based on the Board's historical practice of treating part-time employees and summer students in tandem.

The Board found that the statutory amendments favoured broader-based bargaining structures and that a unit comprising full-time employees and summer students was appropriate and viable.

The Board granted the application and certified the union for the proposed unit.

The applicant trade union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer's reorganization of its workforce shortly after certification breached the Labour Relations Act.

The employer raised several preliminary procedural issues, seeking an adjournment pending a section 108(2) employee status determination, dismissal for lack of a prima facie case, dismissal for want of particulars, and an order that the union proceed first with its evidence.

The Board dismissed the motions for adjournment, lack of a prima facie case, and want of particulars.

A majority of the Board ordered the employer to proceed first with its evidence, finding that the core allegations attracted the reverse onus provisions of section 91(5) and that the employer had peculiar knowledge of the circumstances.

The applicant employer association referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 126 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking a declaration that the Trustees of the Canadian Elevator Industry Pension Plan are not required to accept contributions from employers who are not bound by a valid collective agreement.

The responding trade union objected to the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the dispute originated in Nova Scotia.

The Board found it had jurisdiction because the Trustees had exercised their contractual power to refer the policy grievance to arbitration in Ontario.

On the merits, the union conceded the employer's interpretation, and the Board declared that the Trustees are not required to accept contributions from non-member employers.

The applicant trade union filed a second application for certification after withdrawing its first application to avoid a potential representation vote due to a dispute over the inclusion of three employees.

The responding employer argued this was a manipulation of the Board's processes and requested the Board impose a bar on the application or order a representation vote.

The Board declined to impose a bar, finding no special or extreme circumstances, and refused to order a vote, noting that the union's actions were not improper and any limitation on objecting employees resulted from the operation of the Labour Relations Act, not the union's conduct.

An interim certificate was issued.