Russell G. Goodfellow

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with segregated ballots for technical staff whose inclusion in the unit may be disputed.

The appellant appealed an inspector's refusal to make an order regarding his removal by the union from the Joint Health and Safety Committee.

The union removed him after he refused to apologize for maligning the worker co-chair, as ordered by a union trial board.

The Board dismissed the appeal, finding no prima facie breach of the Occupational Health and Safety Act because the union is not a 'person' under s. 62(5)(a), the appellant was not exercising a power or duty under the Act when he circulated a memo criticizing the co-chairs, and internal union proceedings are not an 'action or other proceeding' under s. 65(1)(d).

The applicant union filed a certification application.

The responding party asserted it was not the employer of the proposed bargaining unit members, claiming they were employed by various personnel agencies.

The Board directed the parties to file detailed representations.

The applicant failed to file its representations on time, arguing it believed the identity of the employer was a 'status dispute' under Information Bulletin #4, which would allow a later filing.

The Board ruled that the identity of the employer is not a status dispute, refused to accept the applicant's late submissions, and dismissed the certification application for failing to establish a prima facie case that the responding party was the employer.

The objecting employees and the employer challenged the validity of a ratification vote conducted by the union.

The ballot presented a choice between accepting the employer's offer or rejecting it and authorizing a strike.

The applicants argued that this compound ballot violated the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by failing to provide a clear 'yes' or 'no' choice on ratification alone.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the challenge, holding that the Act does not mandate a simple 'yes' or 'no' ballot and that the combined ratification/strike ballot is a realistic collective bargaining choice that does not prevent employees from expressing their true wishes.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board directed a representation vote to be held.

The responding party requested that the Board exercise its discretion under section 7(9) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to refuse to consider the application for one year; the Board deferred this issue until after the vote.

A dissenting Board member would have ordered the ballot box sealed pending the determination of the section 7(9) issue.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees at the responding party's retirement residence.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board directed a representation vote.

The employer gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, but failed to provide an estimate of the number of individuals in its proposed bargaining unit.

The majority of the Board declined to treat the response as raising a valid section 8.1 notice.

A dissenting Board member would have found the section 8.1 notice valid and sealed the ballot box pending a hearing.

The employer applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights under section 65(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union was certified in 1983 but failed to conclude a collective agreement or meaningfully assert its bargaining rights for almost 15 years.

The Board found it unnecessary to decide the timeliness of the application under section 65(2), concluding instead that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights through its prolonged inactivity without reasonable excuse.

The Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union filed an application for certification shortly after an unsuccessful application by its parent International union for the same bargaining unit.

The employer argued the application was subject to a mandatory bar or should be refused.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the two campaigns were contiguous and employees would not have perceived a meaningful difference between the two applicants.

While finding the mandatory bar did not apply to a nominally different applicant, the Board exercised its discretion under section 111(2)(k) of the Labour Relations Act to refuse to entertain the application.

The Board declined to impose a bar on subsequent applications.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board considered a reference under section 3(2) of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act to determine whether employees of a third-party catering company working at a nursing home are 'hospital employees'.

The employees worked as cooks, dietary aides, and porters.

The Board concluded that the employees are 'hospital employees' because their functions are essential to the operation of the nursing home and the residents depend on these services for their health and well-being.

The Board emphasized that the statute focuses on the function performed rather than the identity of the employer.

In an application for certification, the Board held a representation vote but segregated the ballots due to disputes over the bargaining unit description and the voters list.

The applicant union sought to prevent the employer from challenging the inclusion of four employees on the list, arguing it was an attempt at gerrymandering after seeing the vote count.

The Board dismissed this motion, noting that under the vote-based system, parties may adjust their positions prior to the preparation of the Officer's Report.

The Board also ruled that the applicant's proposed bargaining unit, which sought to exclude general labour/maintenance employees, was inappropriate as it would cause undue fragmentation and potentially deny those employees collective representation.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit consisting of 15 employees in the Maintenance and Power Services Department of a poultry processing facility.

The employer objected, arguing that the proposed departmental unit was inappropriate.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, reaffirming its long-standing practice against certifying classification-based or departmental bargaining units due to the high potential for fragmentation and the lack of exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from this practice.

The union applied for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration under section 43 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A termination application was also pending.

At the hearing, the employer offered to sign the union's proposed collective agreement and moved to dismiss the first contract application.

The union resisted, arguing the employer's offer was a tactical move to allow the termination application to proceed.

The majority of the Board dismissed the employer's motion, finding that the statutory preconditions for a first contract application were met and that the issue of whether collective bargaining had been unsuccessful required a full evidentiary hearing.

A dissenting Board member would have dismissed the application, finding that the employer's acceptance of the union's offer created a binding contract.

The Pembroke Civic Hospital applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, following a directive to close and transfer its operations to the Pembroke General Hospital.

The parties disputed the appropriate bargaining unit structure and the identity of the resulting bargaining agents for the intermingled employees.

The Board determined that the broader-based bargaining unit structure already in place at the surviving hospital (the General) was appropriate, noting its 25-year history of success and the general labour relations trend toward broader units.

The Board ordered a representation vote to allow employees to choose their bargaining agent from among all the affected trade unions.

The applicant union filed displacement applications for certification and section 96 unfair labour practice complaints against the employer and the incumbent union.

At the outset of the hearing, the incumbent union and the employer brought motions to dismiss the applications.

The Board granted the motions, finding that the allegations of improper conduct during the representation vote campaign, even if true, would not support a finding of a breach of the Act or undermine the vote results.

The Board also noted the applicant failed to raise its concerns prior to the counting of the ballots.

The applications and complaints were dismissed.

The employer applied under section 5(2) of the transitional provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that a combined full-time and part-time bargaining unit was no longer appropriate.

The union argued that the Board should apply its modern approach to community of interest, focusing on whether the combined unit caused serious labour relations problems.

The Board rejected this approach, finding that the transitional provisions required a traditional community of interest analysis.

Given the significant differences in terms and conditions of employment and the traditional nature of the part-time student workforce, the Board found no community of interest and declared the combined unit inappropriate.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The most recent collective agreement between the responding party employer and the intervenor union had expired, and a conciliation officer had been appointed.

Under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act and the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the open period for a certification application closes when a conciliation officer is appointed or the agreement expires, whichever is later.

As no subsequent agreement had been entered into since the conciliation officer's appointment, the Board found the application untimely and dismissed it.

The applicant union applied for certification and proposed a specific bargaining unit.

The responding hospital initially proposed a different unit but later agreed in writing to the applicant's proposed unit.

A representation vote was held based on this agreement.

On the eve of the vote, the hospital attempted to argue it had only agreed to a voting constituency, not the bargaining unit itself, and claimed the unit would cause undue fragmentation.

The Board held that the statutory scheme does not permit a 'qualified' agreement on a bargaining unit description.

The hospital was bound by its agreement, and the Board found the agreed-upon unit to be appropriate.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

The responding party asserted that the employees were already represented by an incumbent employees' association under a collective agreement.

Finding that the applicant had the requisite support, the Board directed a representation vote.

Voters will cast two ballots: one for representation by the applicant, and a second choosing between the applicant and the incumbent association, pending a future determination of the association's trade union status.

The union applied for automatic certification under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the employer committed unfair labour practices during an organizing campaign.

The employer actively promoted an alternative 'staff association' and indefinitely suspended the lead inside union organizer for conducting union business on company time.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the employer's conduct violated sections 70, 72, and 76 of the Act.

The Board concluded that the cumulative effect of the employer's actions created a climate where a representation vote would not likely reflect the true wishes of the employees.

Consequently, the Board granted automatic certification without a vote.

The employer applied for a declaration terminating the union's bargaining rights for a unit of security guards under the transitional provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

As a preliminary issue, the employer argued that the doctrine of issue estoppel applied based on a 1994 Board decision between the same parties that found a conflict of interest existed.

The majority of the Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that while the facts had not changed, the statutory context and the legal test for conflict of interest had materially changed under the new legislation.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to schedule a hearing on the merits.

One Board member dissented.