R. W Pirrie

The employer alleged that the union obtained its certification by fraud because it estimated 57 employees in the bargaining unit on its application, despite the employer previously stating there were 64.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the test for fraud from Derry v. Peek, which requires a false representation made knowingly, without belief in its truth, or recklessly.

The Board found that the union representatives had an honest belief in their estimate, which was based on a practical assessment by the chief steward.

The Board concluded that the union's conduct did not amount to fraud and upheld the certificate.

The applicant, a social worker, alleged she was terminated and subjected to pre-termination reprisals by her employer, a hospital, after complaining of sexual harassment by her supervisor.

The hospital argued the termination was strictly due to financial restructuring and that sexual harassment falls outside the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the reprisal complaint, as the applicant genuinely believed the harassment was a workplace hazard.

However, the Board dismissed the complaint on the merits, finding the termination was a bona fide layoff driven by budget cuts and that the alleged pre-termination incidents did not constitute penalties or reprisals.

The union applied for certification and won a representation vote.

The employer challenged the vote on three grounds: that the 40% threshold for ordering the vote should have been based on the actual number of employees rather than the union's estimate; that the union committed fraud by intentionally understating the number of employees in its application; and that providing ballots only in English and French violated the section 15 Charter rights of an employee who misunderstood the ballot due to language difficulties.

The Board dismissed the 40% threshold and Charter arguments, finding that the statute permits reliance on the union's estimate and that language difficulties do not constitute discrimination under section 15.

However, the Board found an arguable case for fraud and scheduled a hearing on that issue.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees at a retail store.

During the organizing drive, the employer engaged in a campaign that included daily meetings and managers repeatedly questioning employees about the union.

Crucially, management refused to answer employee questions about whether the store would close if the union was successful, which the Board found intentionally fueled employee fears for their job security.

The Board concluded that this conduct violated section 70 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that the resulting representation vote did not reflect the true wishes of the employees.

The Board certified the union pursuant to section 11 of the Act.

The applicant union sought interim relief to prevent the exclusion of certain employees from the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act pending a decision on the merits.

The Board held that while section 98 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 limits interim orders to procedural matters, section 16.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act grants the Board a broader, general power to make interim orders related to its jurisdiction, which prevails due to the override provision in section 32 of the SPPA.

However, the Board declined to grant interim relief in this case, primarily because the applicant was unwilling to proceed expeditiously with a hearing on the merits.

The applicant and intervenor employer requested reconsideration of a Board decision that found a ballot to be spoiled.

They argued the Board erred by relying on unreported decisions without seeking submissions and that the decision departed from Board policy.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the parties had full opportunity to argue the legal principle regarding spoiled ballots, and that the Board was not required to seek submissions on cases that merely confirmed established principles.

The Board maintained that the ballot did not clearly indicate the voter's intent.

The responding party employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the applicant's complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) for want of a prima facie case.

The applicant alleged she was terminated as a reprisal for reporting sexual harassment by her supervisor, arguing that sexual harassment constitutes a workplace hazard under the OHSA.

The employer argued the OHSA only covers physical hazards and that the Human Rights Code is the proper forum.

The majority of the Board dismissed the motion, finding it was not plain and obvious that the complaint would fail, as the OHSA's definition of 'hazard' is broad and could arguably encompass sexual harassment.

A dissenting member would have granted the motion, finding the OHSA inapplicable to sexual harassment.

The applicant union sought a declaration under subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 that Canada Stampings & Dies Ltd. and Stamptech Ltd. are one employer.

The Board found that the two businesses were related or associated, as they served the same general market, employed the same mode of production, and were under the common control and direction of the same principal.

The Board exercised its discretion to issue the declaration, finding that the establishment of the new operation had an adverse effect on the union's existing bargaining rights by transferring work and potential growth away from the original bargaining unit.

The declaration was made retrospective to the date the union filed its grievance.

The applicant employer filed a complaint under section 96(7) of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent union breached a settlement agreement by distributing a memorandum to employees regarding the termination of a union organizer.

The employer argued that during settlement discussions, the union's counsel made oral representations that the matter would not be raised again, creating an estoppel.

The union brought a motion to dismiss the application for failing to disclose an arguable case.

The majority of the Board dismissed the application, holding that section 96(7) only applies to the written terms of a settlement and cannot be used to enforce oral representations.

The Board found that the written settlement did not preclude the union from communicating with employees about the matter.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 174 of the Environmental Protection Act, alleging he was disciplined as a reprisal for raising environmental concerns.

The employer requested the Board decline to inquire into the complaint because the discipline had already been the subject of a grievance arbitration, which was dismissed.

The Board exercised its discretion not to inquire into the complaint, citing the prior arbitration, the nature of the remedy sought, and the applicant's delay in filing the complaint.

The Minister referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 3(2) of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, asking whether the employer is a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Act.

The employer operates a residential facility for aged and infirm individuals, providing accommodation and care services.

The Board found that the facility provides observation, care, and treatment to residents, the majority of whom are elderly and require assistance.

The Board concluded that the employer is a 'hospital' under the Act, as the residents are dependent on the care provided and would be at risk in the event of a strike or lock-out.

The applicant filed a complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging that she was sexually harassed at work, which caused her to feel unsafe, and that her subsequent termination was a reprisal for reporting the harassment.

The responding party brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for want of a prima facie case, arguing that sexual harassment is not covered by the Act.

The majority of the Board dismissed the preliminary motion, finding that the matter ought not to be dismissed without a hearing.

A dissenting member argued that the Board lacks jurisdiction because sexual harassment falls under the Human Rights Code, not the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The applicant union alleged that the responding municipality violated the duty to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by withdrawing a wage offer and refusing to negotiate retroactive wage increases.

The employer argued that its actions were justified by the financial impact of the Expenditure Reduction Program and the Social Contract Act.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the employer recognized the union, was prepared to enter into a collective agreement, and was entitled to withdraw its wage proposal due to changed financial circumstances.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by denying a leave of absence request from a key inside union organizer, which led to her resignation.

The employer failed to call the district manager who made the decision to deny the leave.

Applying the reverse onus provision, the Board concluded that the employer failed to prove its decision was free from anti-union animus.

The Board directed the employer to reinstate the grievor to her former position.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of projectionists at the responding party's IMAX theatre.

The parties agreed to have the Board determine as a preliminary issue whether the applicant had craft status with respect to the projectionists under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the projectionists exercised technical skills distinguishing them from other employees, that the union commonly bargained separately for this craft, and that the union pertained to such skills.

The Board concluded that the three conditions for craft status were satisfied.

In an application for certification of a craft unit of projectionists, the union objected to cross-examination regarding the specific skills exercised by the projectionists.

The union argued that the licensing requirement under the Theatres Act was determinative of the projectionists' status as a distinguishable craft under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board upheld the objection, finding that the mandatory licensing regime under the Theatres Act established that the projectionists were members of a craft by reason of which they were distinguishable from other employees, making further inquiry into their technical skills unnecessary.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent the ground staff at the responding party's golf and country club.

The responding party argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should include both the ground staff and the clubhouse staff.

The Board found that the ground staff shared a distinct community of interest, separate from the clubhouse staff, due to differences in work locations, hours, supervision, and budgets.

Applying the test from The Hospital for Sick Children, the Board concluded that the ground staff constituted a viable bargaining unit and that their certification would not cause serious labour relations problems.

The application for certification was granted for the ground staff unit.

The Association of Major League Umpires filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the American and National Leagues and the Toronto Blue Jays, challenging a lock-out and the use of replacement umpires at games in Toronto.

The Leagues argued that their collective bargaining relationship was governed by American law and that Ontario law did not apply.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the Ontario Labour Relations Act applies to the umpires when they work in Toronto.

The Board declared that the lock-out and the use of replacement umpires in Ontario were unlawful because the parties had not completed the compulsory conciliation process required by the 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 applicant union sought certification for employees at a 60-bed retirement home.

The parties disputed whether fifty 'floating' maintenance and housekeeping employees, who serviced twenty-five different homes, should be included in the bargaining unit.

The Board determined that including the floating employees would create serious labour relations problems and administrative difficulties, as they could potentially fall into multiple bargaining units.

The Board excluded the floating employees from the bargaining unit and, finding that more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the unit had applied for membership, granted the certification.