Russell G. Goodfellow

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the responding party's plant.

Following a representation vote in favour of the union, a group of maintenance employees objected to being included in the same bargaining unit as production employees.

The Board dismissed the objection without a hearing, noting it is common practice to include production and maintenance employees in a single unit and there was no evidence that the agreed-upon unit lacked a sufficiently coherent community of interest.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The Minister of Labour referred two questions to the Ontario Labour Relations Board: whether the Canadian Red Cross Society (Ontario Division) is a 'hospital' under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA), and whether its homemakers are 'hospital employees'.

The Board concluded that the Society's Homemaker Services Program and the Brant County Home Care Program do not meet the statutory definition of a 'hospital'.

The Board emphasized that homemaking services are provided in patients' homes rather than in a residential institution, are not primarily medical in nature, and are not statutorily required.

Consequently, the homemakers are not hospital employees and retain the right to strike under the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant union applied to combine two bargaining units it represented at the respondent newspaper: one consisting of editorial employees and another consisting of part-time mailroom employees.

The employer opposed the combination, arguing the units lacked a community of interest and that the combination would shift bargaining power and cause serious labour relations problems.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the application, finding that the combination would facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining, reduce fragmentation, and not cause serious labour relations problems.

The union applied for certification.

The employer alleged that the union's organizing campaign was tainted by the involvement of managerial employees and by material misrepresentations made by a union organizer regarding employees' ability to withdraw their membership.

The Board held that the managerial employees were acting contrary to the employer's interests, which did not trigger the statutory bar to certification or cast doubt on the voluntariness of the membership evidence.

The Board also found that the union organizer did not make the alleged misrepresentations.

The Board certified the union based on the documentary evidence of membership.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer terminated two employees and intimidated others during an organizing campaign.

The employer did not attend the hearing, citing financial inability to travel to Toronto, and the Board declined to change the venue to Thunder Bay based on its travel policy.

The Board found that the employer breached sections 65, 67, and 71 of the Labour Relations Act by terminating the employees for their union support and creating a climate of fear.

The Board ordered the employees reinstated and certified the union under section 9.2 of the Act.

In a union certification application, the parties disputed whether lead hands, linemen, and senior deburrers should be excluded from the bargaining unit.

The employer failed to file particulars, so the Board proceeded based on the union's statement of facts.

The Board found that the disputed employees did not exercise managerial functions under section 1(3) of the Labour Relations Act, as their involvement in discipline and scheduling was limited and infrequent.

The Board also rejected the argument that they lacked a community of interest with the rest of the bargaining unit, noting that minor differences in working conditions do not create serious labour relations problems.

A final certificate was issued to the union.

The applicant union alleged that the respondent non-profit community theatre purchased a part of the business of the predecessor cinema operator when it acquired a theatre building, and thus was a successor employer under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent purchased the cinema and renovated it for live theatre performances.

The Board found that the respondent did not acquire a distinct part of the predecessor's configuration of assets, nor was there a continuation of the work performed by the employees.

The application was dismissed as no sale of a business occurred.

The Euclid-Hitachi Employees Association applied for certification to displace the incumbent CAW.

The CAW argued the application should be barred due to a recently dismissed termination application, that the Association was not a valid trade union, and that the employer had provided unlawful support to the Association.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the application was not barred because the prior termination application did not result in a vote.

The Board further found that the Association met the statutory definition of a trade union and that the evidence did not establish employer support or interference.

The Board directed that the ballots from the pre-hearing representation vote be counted.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the application on all three grounds.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of hotel employees, specifically excluding front desk staff.

The respondent employer opposed the exclusion, arguing that it would cause serious labour relations problems due to fragmentation and the cross-utilization of front desk staff for housekeeping and food service tasks.

Applying the Hospital for Sick Children test, the Ontario Labour Relations Board found the proposed unit appropriate, concluding that the employer's concerns about jurisdictional disputes and strike complications were speculative and could be accommodated in collective bargaining.

A certificate was issued to the applicant, with one Board Member dissenting on the basis that excluding front desk staff would unduly fragment labour relations.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether a union's request for first contract arbitration and an employer's request for a last-offer vote should proceed simultaneously, or if one takes precedence.

The Board held that there is no statutory priority between the two requests.

Both must proceed in the normal course, and the scheduled last-offer vote should proceed on the usual terms.

The applicant union filed an application under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act regarding a jurisdictional dispute over a newly created Health Promotion Officer position assigned to the responding union's bargaining unit.

The applicant claimed the position should be in its bargaining unit because the occupant was a registered nurse.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the issue was a dispute over which bargaining unit a particular individual falls into based on their status, rather than a dispute over which trade union has the right to claim the performance of particular work.

The Board concluded the matter was not properly before it as a jurisdictional dispute and should be resolved through arbitration.

The union alleged that the employer violated section 73.1(6) of the Labour Relations Act by using non-managerial replacement workers from another place of operations to perform the work of striking employees.

The employer argued that its entire service area constituted a single integrated place of operations.

The Board agreed with the employer, finding that the various work sites, including the headquarters, field locations, and generating stations, were operationally linked and not sufficiently distinct to constitute separate places of operations.

The application was dismissed.

In an ongoing application for certification, the employer requested a representation vote under section 8(3) of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the union submitted fraudulent membership cards and prevented appropriate communication with employees.

The union brought a motion to restrict the inquiry into the scope of the bargaining unit, arguing the employer was bound by an agreement from a prior certification application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the union's motion, finding no basis for res judicata or issue estoppel.

The Board also denied the employer's request for a vote, concluding that the allegations of fraud lacked particularity and that the union had achieved the requisite 55% support for automatic certification.

The Board revoked the appointment of a Labour Relations Officer and directed a hearing to resolve the remaining bargaining unit configuration issues.

The union applied for remedial relief following a Board decision directing the combination of full-time and part-time bargaining units.

The union alleged the employer failed to respond to attempts to negotiate a merged collective agreement.

The Board declined to immediately re-list the matter for hearing, reminding the parties of their duty to bargain the consequences of the combination order.

The Board directed the union to provide a detailed description of the requested remedies and material facts, and the employer to respond, before determining whether and when to re-list the matter.

The applicant union filed a complaint alleging that the employer improperly assigned occasional teacher work to members of another union.

The employer and the responding union argued that the dispute involved interpreting the Education Act and should be left to the Minister of Education.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that it has jurisdiction under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act to resolve work assignment disputes, even if the assignment might also violate another statute.

The Board directed the parties to file lists of tasks, witnesses, and evidence in preparation for a hearing.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The responding employer objected, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to direct a vote until it determined the effect of certain revocations of membership evidence on the union's level of support.

The Board declined the employer's request for a hearing prior to the vote, noting that the purpose of a pre-hearing vote is to test employee wishes without delay upon the appearance of 35 per cent support.

The Board directed that the vote be taken but ordered the ballot box sealed pending the disposition of the disputed issues at a subsequent hearing.

The applicant union sought interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, requesting an order that the responding party employer re-open a logging camp that had recently been closed.

The union alleged the employer failed to disclose the impending closure during collective bargaining.

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

The harm alleged by the union was primarily financial and could be remedied if the main application succeeded.

Furthermore, the union failed to act promptly, waiting until after the camp had closed and equipment had been moved before filing the application.

The applicant union filed an application for certification during the open period of the intervenor's expired collective agreement with the responding party employer.

The intervenor subsequently gave notice under the Social Contract Act to revive and extend the expired collective agreement, and argued this retroactively closed the open period and rendered the certification application untimely.

The Board dismissed the intervenor's objection, holding that the Social Contract Act does not manifest a clear legislative intent to operate retroactively to interfere with vested representation rights or invalidate an application that was timely when filed.

The Board directed that the ballots cast in the pre-hearing representation vote be counted.

The applicant union sought a single employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act following the closure of a unionized warehouse and the transfer of its work to a newly consolidated, non-unionized warehouse operated by a related corporate entity.

The responding parties conceded they carried on related activities under common control but argued against the declaration on the basis of employee wishes and corporate reorganization.

The Board granted the declaration, finding that the corporate reorganization incidentally undermined established bargaining rights and that the employer could not rely on the situation it created to deny the declaration.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of registered and graduate nurses.

The employer argued that the Occupational Health Nurse should be excluded from the bargaining unit on the basis that she exercised managerial functions and was employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations under section 1(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the nurse's duties, which included assessing fitness to return to work, completing workers' compensation forms, and limited involvement in discipline and hiring, were based on her professional expertise and did not constitute managerial functions.

The Board also found insufficient evidence of regular and material involvement in confidential labour relations matters.

The Board declared the nurse to be an employee and issued a final certificate.