R. S. Abella

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the statutory freeze period under section 79 of the Labour Relations Act by unilaterally opening its retail store on Sundays.

The store had never previously been open on Sundays.

The employer argued it was responding to market pressures from competitors and that Sunday shifts were strictly voluntary.

The Board found that while the employer has the right to manage its operations and respond to market pressures, opening on Sundays was not "business as usual" given the unique legal and social history of Sunday as a non-working day.

The Board concluded the employer breached the statutory freeze but declined to order remedial relief.

The complainant, a 17-year employee, was terminated for alleged theft and filed a grievance.

At a settlement meeting with a Grievance Settlement Officer, the complainant, who had limited English, signed a resignation under the mistaken belief it was a temporary measure until his criminal trial concluded.

The union representative failed to explain the document, advise the complainant of his option to arbitrate, or adequately represent him during the meeting.

The Board held that the Grievance Settlement Officer was not compellable to testify due to settlement privilege.

The Board found the union's conduct arbitrary and in violation of section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, directing the matter to be listed for a remedy hearing.

The applicant union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration pursuant to section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The union argued that collective bargaining was unsuccessful because the respondent employer maintained uncompromising positions without reasonable justification, specifically insisting on a three-year term and refusing to include a seniority rights or job security clause.

The Board found that the employer's refusal to grant seniority rights, especially given the history of unlawful terminations for union activity, and its insistence on a three-year term were without reasonable justification.

The Board directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The respondent employer requested an adjournment of an unfair labour practice hearing to provide notice to 25 employees who continued to work during a lawful strike.

The employer argued that the union's requested remedial relief could affect the rights of these employees.

The Board denied the adjournment request, finding that the interests of the 25 employees were incidental to the main issues between the employer and the union, and that they were not entitled to status as parties or notice of the proceedings.

The complainant, a structural steelfitter's helper, was assigned sweeping duties upon returning to work.

He objected to the assignment, considering it a constructive demotion, and was eventually discharged for refusing to sweep.

The union assisted him in filing a discharge grievance and attempted to negotiate his reinstatement, but the complainant refused to return if it meant sweeping.

The union membership subsequently voted against taking the grievance to arbitration.

The complainant alleged the union breached its duty of fair representation.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding no evidence of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union, which had reasonably concluded the employer was within its rights to assign the work.

During a hearing for an unfair labour practice application, the respondent union sought production of notes that a complainant witness had used to refresh his memory prior to testifying.

The witness did not refer to the notes during his examination-in-chief.

The Board held that ordering production of such notes is a matter of discretion.

The Board declined to order production because the respondent failed to establish the factual basis for the exercise of discretion, such as the time elapsed between the witness referring to the notes and giving evidence, and because notes prepared for counsel are privileged.

In an unfair labour practice complaint alleging termination for union activities, the respondent sought to introduce polygraph evidence to prove his lack of anti-union animus.

The complainant union objected, citing the Employment Standards Act's prohibition on lie detector tests in employment.

The Board ruled the polygraph evidence inadmissible, finding that its introduction would put employees at a tactical disadvantage and undermine the legislative intent protecting employees from such tests.

A dissenting member would have allowed the evidence to be considered for its relevance.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board pursuant to section 107 of the Labour Relations Act regarding his authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The employer and the trade union had signed a memorandum of agreement, but the union argued it was null and void due to a common mistake regarding the calculation of a cost of living allowance (COLA) fold-in.

Both parties had mistakenly assumed the COLA entitlement was 10 cents per hour instead of 21 cents.

The Board held that the doctrine of common mistake does not vitiate a collective agreement where the parties specifically directed their minds to stipulated amounts and agreed to them without fraud or misrepresentation.

The Board concluded that a binding collective agreement was in effect and the Minister had no authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The union and an individual employee filed complaints alleging that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act by penalizing employees for their union organizing activities.

The employer laid off one key union organizer, reduced overtime for another, and terminated a third who had also refused to work on a machine that had previously caused him health issues.

The Board found that the employer's actions were motivated by anti-union animus and that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving otherwise.

The Board concluded that the employer contravened sections 64 and 66 of the Labour Relations Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.