Rory F. Egan

The applicant union brought an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging a sale of a business occurred when the respondent corporation purchased all the shares of the employer.

The Board found that the transfer of shares left the corporate employer intact and did not constitute a sale of a business within the meaning of the Act.

The application was dismissed, with the Board noting that the union's bargaining rights and collective agreement with the original employer remained in effect.

The applicant sought an exemption from the union security provisions of a first collective agreement on the grounds of religious conviction or belief under section 47 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant, a Seventh Day Adventist, testified that his religious beliefs prevented him from joining or financially supporting a trade union.

Despite having previously paid union dues at another employer, the Board accepted his explanation that his religious convictions had since re-awakened.

The majority of the Board found the applicant's beliefs to be sincerely held and granted the exemption, directing that an amount equal to union dues be remitted to a mutually agreed charitable organization.

One Board member dissented, questioning the sincerity of the applicant's beliefs.

The applicant union sought certification, and a dispute arose regarding the composition of the bargaining unit.

The Board determined that a First Cook exercised managerial functions and was excluded, while a Housekeeper with minor supervisory duties was included.

The Board also found that a maintenance worker who received a $5,000 advance on wages to buy a truck upon turning 65 remained an employee at the time of the application.

The Board directed that the representation vote ballots be counted.

The applicants applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union for two bargaining units of the intervener employer.

The Board dismissed the application regarding the non-ICI sector as untimely.

For the ICI sector, the union argued the relevant bargaining unit for termination was the province-wide unit under the provincial agreement, meaning the applicants lacked the required 45% support.

The Board held that the correct bargaining unit for termination purposes is the employer-specific unit, not the province-wide unit.

Finding that the applicants had the requisite support within the employer's ICI unit, the Board directed a representation vote.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of store managers at the respondent's retail outlets.

The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the store managers exercised managerial functions and were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the store managers had the authority to hire and phase out temporary employees, schedule hours of work, and evaluate employees.

The Board concluded that the store managers exercised managerial functions and dismissed the application for certification.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for part-time graduate and research assistants at York University.

The Board had previously ruled in 1975 that these assistants were not employees under the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant argued that circumstances and the Board's approach had changed, citing a recent decision involving Carleton University.

The Board found that the graduate assistantship program at York was primarily a financial aid scheme to assist needy students and attract them to the university, rather than an employment relationship based on the university's dependency on their work.

The Board concluded that the assistants were not employees within the meaning of the Act and dismissed the application.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that two related construction companies constituted one employer and were bound by its collective agreement.

The respondent companies were under common control, but one operated as a unionized company while the other operated non-union.

When the unionized company was denied a subcontract because it lacked affiliation with the Carpenters union, the non-union company signed a voluntary recognition agreement with the Carpenters to secure the work.

The Board found that the Carpenters' bargaining rights were validly acquired based on pre-existing contractual obligations and declined to exercise its discretion to revoke those rights, dismissing the application.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of the respondent at clinics in Hamilton, Burlington, and London.

The Board found the applicant established its status as a trade union, dismissing objections regarding the sequence of its founding meeting and undated membership cards.

The Board rejected the applicant's request for a single combined bargaining unit covering all three municipalities, finding insufficient community of interest and no interchange of employees, and instead determined that three separate units were appropriate.

The Board granted a certificate for the Burlington unit and an interim certificate for the Hamilton unit pending the resolution of a disputed managerial exclusion, while appointing a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into disputed classifications at the London clinic.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 60a of the Labour Relations Act regarding hiring hall referrals.

The union brought preliminary motions to dismiss the complaint for periods when no collective agreement was in effect and for extreme delay.

The Board held that the statutory freeze period under section 70(1) preserved the hiring hall provisions for 14 days following the release of a 'No Board' report, allowing the Board to hear allegations from that period.

The Board also declined to dismiss the older allegations for delay, noting its practice is to consider delay when assessing relief rather than barring the complaint entirely.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employers failed to employ union members and hire through the union office.

The respondents submitted that the employer bargaining agency and the currently hired employees should receive notice of the proceedings.

The Board found that the employer bargaining agency was an interested party and that the employees were liable to be directly and adversely affected by the arbitration.

The Board directed that notice of the proceedings be given to both the employer bargaining agency and the affected employees.

The applicant association applied for certification as a trade union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer had continuously interfered with the affairs of the association, including referring the association to a management consultant, discussing the legality of the association and the right to strike, and allowing organizational meetings on paid time.

Consequently, the Board held that the applicant was not a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1)(n) of the Labour Relations Act and that certification was prohibited under section 12 due to employer participation and support.

The application was dismissed.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied for certification.

The Board had to determine whether the Home Care Administrator and the Family Planning Co-ordinator should be included in the bargaining unit or excluded under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act for exercising managerial functions.

The Board found that the Home Care Administrator exercised significant managerial authority, including budgetary control and hiring of therapists, and was therefore excluded.

Conversely, the Family Planning Co-ordinator's role relied on professional knowledge rather than managerial authority, and she was included in the bargaining unit.

In an application for certification, a dispute arose regarding the eligibility of three individuals to cast ballots in a representation vote.

The Board ruled that an employee who had been temporarily transferred into the bargaining unit but returned to her original unit before the vote was ineligible to vote.

Conversely, an employee who had been absent due to illness for an extended period but maintained an employment relationship and received benefits was deemed eligible to vote.

The Board directed that the eligible ballots be counted.