R. R. Montague

The applicant union filed an application under section 64.2 of the Labour Relations Act alleging a deemed sale of a business from the predecessor employer to the responding party security services company.

The responding party failed to file a response by the terminal date, despite acknowledging receipt of the notice.

The union requested that the Board apply Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure to deem the facts accepted and grant the application without a hearing.

The Board found that the pleaded facts established a deemed sale of a business, as the predecessor ceased providing security services at the site and the responding party subsequently provided substantially similar services.

The Board applied Rule 19, deemed the facts accepted, and granted the application, declaring that a sale of a business had occurred and that the union's bargaining rights continued.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A preliminary issue arose regarding the applicant's ability to accept the proposed bargaining unit employees into membership.

In a prior decision, the Board had dismissed an application because the union's constitution did not permit such membership.

The union subsequently amended its constitution at a Special Meeting.

An intervenor argued the amendment was invalid because the constitution required amendments to be made at an annual conference.

The Board held that the procedures used were substantially consistent with the union's internal rules, noting the delegates at the Special Meeting were identical to those entitled to vote at the annual conference.

The Board concluded the amendment was effective and the union could admit the employees into membership.

The union applied for certification.

The employer alleged that union organizers and supporters made material misrepresentations and threats to job security during the organizing campaign, specifically telling employees they would not be protected if they did not sign union cards.

The Board found that paid union organizers did not make such statements.

While a fellow employee may have made ambiguous statements, they did not amount to intimidation or a material misrepresentation that would invalidate the membership evidence.

The Board granted an interim certificate.

The employer requested reconsideration of a Board decision ordering it to cease using replacement workers during a strike.

The employer sought to resile from its earlier agreement that the union's strike vote complied with the Labour Relations Act, citing newly acquired information about the vote's conduct.

The Board dismissed the request, holding that parties are bound by their agreements and tactical decisions made during hearings, and permitting a party to reopen issues based on after-acquired information would undermine the finality of Board proceedings.

The applicant union alleged that a sale of a business occurred when the predecessor hospital transferred its laboratory services to the successor hospital.

The hospitals conceded the sale but argued that the operations and employees were intermingled, justifying the termination of the union's bargaining rights.

The Board found that intermingling had occurred and that the union's proposed bargaining unit, limited to the 'stat' laboratory at the predecessor hospital, was not appropriate due to the integration of the services.

Given that the unionized employees constituted a small minority of the successor's paramedical staff, the Board declined to order a representation vote and declared the union's bargaining rights terminated effective the date of the sale.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer contravened section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act by using six individuals to perform bargaining unit work during a lawful strike.

The individuals had been hired or transferred into pre-existing managerial positions after notice to bargain was given, without increasing the overall managerial complement.

The majority of the Board held that the plain language and purposive interpretation of section 73.1 prohibited the employer from using these individuals to perform the work of striking employees, regardless of whether the overall number of managers increased.

The employer was ordered to cease and desist from using the individuals for bargaining unit work.

A dissenting opinion argued this interpretation created an inequity not intended by the Legislature.

The applicant union sought interim relief under section 92.1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, requesting that the successor employers be ordered to provide a pension plan equivalent to the Public Service Pension Plan pending the disposition of the main application.

The main application alleged that the employers violated the statutory freeze under section 81(1) by altering the pension plan.

The Board found that the applicant had demonstrated an arguable case and that the balance of harm favoured granting the interim relief to restore the collective bargaining positions of the parties.

The Board ordered the employers to provide the equivalent pension plan forthwith.

The applicant union alleged a violation of the Labour Relations Act, arguing that a change in security contractors at a building constituted a sale of a business under the deemed successorship provisions of section 64.2.

The Board issued a preliminary ruling on whether the new contractor's services fell within the scope of the section.

The majority held that the concierge and access control duties performed by the new contractor were security services related to servicing the premises, and were substantially similar to the services provided by the predecessor, despite the elimination of a dedicated patrol position.

The applicant union applied for certification and a representation vote was held, resulting in a tie.

The union subsequently objected to the vote, arguing that one voter was managerial and another eligible employee was omitted from the voter's list.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the objections without an oral hearing, finding that the union had signed a Consent and Waiver Form agreeing to count the first voter's ballot and had agreed to the voter's list prior to the vote.

The Board held that it would be inequitable and an abuse of process to allow the union to resile from its agreements.

The application for certification was dismissed.

The union applied for an interim order to reinstate 28 employees who were laid off when the employer contracted out its warehousing operations.

The union alleged the employer made representations during collective bargaining that it would not contract out the work.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the balance of harm favoured the employer.

The harm to the employees was primarily financial and could be remedied by a final order, whereas the employer would suffer significant, unrecoverable financial harm and disruption if forced to reverse its contracting out arrangements on an interim basis.

The union's delay in bringing the application also weighed against granting relief.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit consisting of all full-time meat department employees of the responding party.

The responding party argued that the proposed unit was no longer a 'craft' unit under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act, claiming the employees no longer exercised technical skills distinguishing them from other employees.

The Board found that the meat cutters and wrappers continued to exercise technical skills and constituted a craft unit.

Finding that more than 55% of the employees in the unit were members of the applicant, the Board granted the application and issued a certificate.

The union applied for certification to represent employees at two divisions of the employer.

The employer argued for two separate bargaining units, while the union and objecting employees sought a single unit.

The Board applied the Hospital for Sick Children test and found a single comprehensive unit appropriate, as it would not cause serious labour relations problems.

The Board also assessed the voluntariness of employee petitions opposing the union.

Finding that the petitions were circulated during working hours with the tacit approval of management and involved shutting down machinery, the Board concluded they did not represent a voluntary expression of employee wishes.

A final certificate was issued for the single bargaining unit.

The union applied for certification and alleged unfair labour practices by the employer, a university students' association.

The employer terminated two employees who were key union organizers and engaged in a pattern of harassment and intimidation during the organizing campaign.

The Board found that the employer violated sections 65, 67, and 71 of the Labour Relations Act.

Concluding that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained due to the employer's contraventions, the Board exercised its discretion under section 9.2 of the Act to certify the union without a vote.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied for certification and sought to remove the phrase 'employed in a nursing capacity' from the standard bargaining unit description, or alternatively, to include the positions of Nurse Clinician, Pharmacy Technician I, and Discharge Planner/Infection Control Nurse within that definition.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to alter the standard craft-like bargaining unit description for nurses.

However, the Board found that the incumbents in all three disputed positions were required by the hospital to hold a Registered Nurse qualification and were expected to possess the training and skills of a nurse to perform their duties.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the positions were 'employed in a nursing capacity' and included them in the bargaining unit.

One Board Member dissented regarding the inclusion of the Pharmacy Technician I position.

The applicant union filed a complaint alleging that the employer violated the statutory freeze provisions under section 13 of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act by unilaterally altering the hours of work of certain registered nurses during collective bargaining.

The employer argued the changes were economically justified and consistent with past practice.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer failed to establish that the changes were 'business as usual' or within the reasonable expectations of the employees.

The Board declared that the employer violated the statutory freeze and ordered compensatory damages for the affected employees, but declined to order the restoration of their previous schedules as the parties had since concluded a collective agreement.

The applicant union alleged that the employer committed an unfair labour practice by denying recognition bonus payments to employees who participated in a lawful strike, while paying the bonus to employees who crossed the picket line.

The employer argued that the bonus was tied to production and was reduced for any absence, relying on its discretion under the plan.

The Board found that the employer had not uniformly applied the reduction to other absences, such as a subsequent sit-in by non-striking employees.

The Board concluded that the employer's exercise of discretion was motivated by anti-union animus and discriminated against the striking employees contrary to section 67(a) of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer was ordered to compensate the striking employees.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of clerical employees at a medical centre, explicitly excluding registered nurses.

The responding employer argued that the appropriate unit should be an all-employee unit including the nurses.

The Board examined the community of interest and the extensive overlap in duties between the clerical staff and nurses, particularly in reception and patient handling.

The majority concluded that excluding the nurses would likely cause serious labour relations problems, such as jurisdictional disputes, due to the high degree of functional integration.

Finding the proposed unit inappropriate and noting the union lacked sufficient support for the broader all-employee unit, the Board dismissed the application.

A dissenting member would have granted the proposed unit to facilitate access to collective bargaining.

The Board issued reasons for its earlier decision to revoke the early termination of a collective agreement between Ledcor and CLAC.

Local 183, which had filed a certification application during what would have been the open period, sought reconsideration of the early termination.

The Board found that Local 183 had standing to bring the reconsideration application because its interests were directly affected.

On the merits, the Board held that the employer's posting of the notice of the early termination application at its office and yard, rather than at the actual job sites where employees worked, was inadequate.

Consequently, the Board revoked its decision granting early termination.

The parties subsequently settled the remaining matters, including the certification application, which was dismissed after a representation vote.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated the statutory freeze and failed to bargain in good faith.

Following the expiration of the collective agreement, the employer laid off unionized employees and subsequently hired non-union workers to perform bargaining unit work without applying the terms of the expired agreement.

The employer also presented proposals with significant wage cuts and resisted further negotiations, seeking to end its relationship with the union due to economic difficulties.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer violated the statutory freeze under section 81 and failed to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered compensation for the section 81 violation and directed the employer to resume bargaining, declining the union's request to impose a collective agreement as a remedy.

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.