R. Wilson

The employer, Knob Hill Farms Limited, requested reconsideration of a Board decision certifying the union, alleging that the union obtained the certificate by fraud under section 58 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer argued that the union failed to disclose its intention to merge with another local union prior to the certification decision.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the union continued to exist as a trade union at the time of certification and that the failure to disclose the impending merger did not constitute a material misrepresentation or fraud.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer interfered with its organizing campaign by laying off 14 employees, granting a sudden wage increase, and engaging in intimidation.

The Board found that the employer's actions, particularly the layoffs and wage increase, were motivated by anti-union animus and violated the Labour Relations Act.

Concluding that the employer's misconduct created a climate where the true wishes of the employees could not be ascertained, the Board exercised its discretion under section 8 to certify the union and ordered the reinstatement of the laid-off employees with compensation.

The applicant union sought a determination under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act that two individuals performing pole line construction for the respondent were dependent contractors and thus employees.

The Board applied the 11-factor test from Algonquin Tavern to assess the relationship.

The Board found that the individuals operated a specialized, independent business, supplied their own equipment, set their own unit prices, and retained control over their work methods.

Consequently, the Board concluded they were independent contractors, not dependent contractors, and dismissed the application.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent purchaser of a tavern business committed an unfair labour practice by refusing to employ former employees because of their union membership.

The respondent declared bankruptcy and did not attend the hearing.

The Board found that because the sale occurred after the collective agreement expired, the respondent was not bound to continue the employment of the predecessor's employees.

Since the grievors did not formally apply for employment until months later, and there was no evidence of available positions or compensable loss at that time, the Board dismissed the complaint.

In an application for certification, the intervener union filed allegations of misconduct.

The respondent employer brought a preliminary motion demanding further particulars of the allegations.

The Board reviewed the legal and labour relations considerations for requiring particulars, noting the need for natural justice and avoiding prejudicial delay.

The Board directed the intervener to provide specific particulars regarding dates, times, places, and persons involved in the alleged meetings and incidents, and adjourned the hearing on the merits.

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

The respondent employer and the applicant agreed on the voting constituency.

However, the applicant filed a defective Form 9 declaration concerning membership documents.

The Board held that under subsection 9(2) of the Labour Relations Act, the Board only needs to determine if there is an appearance of membership support based on union and employer records, which combination application cards satisfy.

The Board directed the pre-hearing representation vote but ordered the ballot box sealed until a proper Form 9 declaration is filed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board amended its previous decision dated May 15, 1986, by deleting a sentence from paragraph 18 regarding the risk of having the Board determine the dispute on uncontested evidence.

The Registrar was directed to schedule the complaint for a pre-hearing conference.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of the respondent's employees.

The union filed acceptable membership evidence for over 70 percent of the employees in the unit at the time of the application, exceeding the 55 percent required for automatic certification.

The respondent employer requested that the Board exercise its discretion to order a representation vote due to a planned build-up of the workforce from 70 to 156 employees.

The Board applied its established build-up principles, noting that even at the halfway point of the projected build-up, the union would likely maintain support of approximately 65 percent of the employees.

Consequently, the Board declined to order a representation vote and granted outright certification to the applicant.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act that a sale of a business occurred between Canada Safeway Limited and the respondent.

The respondent had subleased a former Safeway location and purchased some fixtures after Safeway closed the store.

The respondent extensively renovated the premises to open an ethnically-oriented supermarket.

The Board found that the respondent did not acquire Safeway's business, but merely purchased idle assets to expand its own successful, pre-existing business.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union sought certification for the respondent's office support staff.

A representation vote was held based on an agreed-upon voters' list, and all ballots were cast in favour of the applicant.

After the vote, the respondent sought to challenge the eligibility of one of the voters, claiming she should be excluded as a confidential employee.

The Board held that the respondent could not resile from its earlier agreement on the voters' list and that any challenge to voter eligibility had to be raised in a timely fashion at the time of the vote.

The Board certified the applicant.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board alleging the respondent employer improperly subcontracted concrete forming work.

The respondent and intervening unions requested a preliminary determination under section 150 of the Labour Relations Act as to whether the work fell within the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector.

The Board granted the request, finding it appropriate to determine the sector issue before hearing the merits of the grievance, given the potential illegality of the collective agreement if it purported to cover ICI work.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description but disputed whether five individuals exercised managerial functions and should be excluded under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The parties requested an interim certificate and an adjournment to resolve the dispute during collective bargaining.

The Board determined that it had jurisdiction to issue a final certificate, rather than an interim one, because the dispute over the five individuals' status would not affect the union's right to certification or the description of the bargaining unit.

A final certificate was issued.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the college violated the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act by assigning make-up work to academic staff without mutual consent or additional remuneration following a legislated end to a strike.

The college brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board found that the college was not required to consult the union before assigning the work, as the assignments did not exceed the maximum teaching hours under the collective agreement and were consistent with the back-to-work legislation.

The Board concluded that the allegations could not reasonably or arguably establish a breach of the Act and dismissed the complaint without a hearing.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union violated section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by permitting members to be hired without referral slips during an emergency repair job, and by failing to secure his employment as a job steward.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union's business manager exercised reasonable discretion to waive strict hiring hall rules in an emergency to promote employment for members.

The Board concluded the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.