R. W Pirrie

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.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the responding employers terminated three employees for their union activity.

The responding parties failed to file a response in accordance with the Board's Rules of Procedure and failed to comply with a prior interim reinstatement order.

The Board refused to extend the time for filing a response, deemed the facts in the application to be true, and found that the employers violated the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the immediate reinstatement of the three employees with full compensation.

The union applied for interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking the reinstatement of 23 employees laid off shortly after an application for certification was filed.

The union alleged the layoffs were motivated by anti-union animus, while the employer claimed they were due to a seasonal shortage of work.

The Board found the union established an arguable case but balanced the harm by ordering the employer to provide work equivalent to two full shifts, rather than reinstating all 23 employees, as the employer failed to explain the sudden reduction from two planned shifts to one.

The union applied to combine two bargaining units of front-of-house movie theatre employees located in Toronto and Ottawa into a single unit under section 7 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer opposed the combination, arguing that the geographic and administrative disparity meant combination would not reduce fragmentation and would cause serious labour relations problems.

The Board found that combining the units would reduce fragmentation and facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining without causing serious labour relations problems, and ordered the combination.

One Board Member dissented, expressing concern over the efficacy of combining units in Toronto and Ottawa.

The applicant union applied for certification and submitted membership evidence, including ten cards received by mail.

The employer challenged the weight of the mailed cards because the union's Form A-4 declarant did not personally contact the employees to verify they had signed the cards, relying instead only on the fact that the cards were received in sealed business reply envelopes.

The Board held that without further verification or corroborating circumstances, it would not give full evidentiary weight to the mailed cards.

Consequently, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A preliminary issue arose regarding the applicant's ability to accept the proposed bargaining unit employees into membership.

In a prior decision, the Board had dismissed an application because the union's constitution did not permit such membership.

The union subsequently amended its constitution at a Special Meeting.

An intervenor argued the amendment was invalid because the constitution required amendments to be made at an annual conference.

The Board held that the procedures used were substantially consistent with the union's internal rules, noting the delegates at the Special Meeting were identical to those entitled to vote at the annual conference.

The Board concluded the amendment was effective and the union could admit the employees into membership.

The applicant filed a complaint against the responding party union alleging a failure to act in good faith.

The applicant subsequently signed a request to withdraw the application, which the Board granted.

Several months later, the applicant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of the withdrawal decision, arguing he misapprehended the nature of the form.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration due to the applicant's unexplained delay in raising the issue after receiving the Board's decision confirming the withdrawal.

The applicant employee applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

The union raised a preliminary objection that the application was untimely because a collective agreement was already in effect.

The employer had made a final offer which the employees rejected twice, leading to a brief strike.

During the strike, the union's Canadian Director exercised his constitutional authority to ratify the employer's final offer on behalf of the union, without employee approval.

The Board found that the employer's offer had not been withdrawn and remained outstanding.

By ratifying the offer, the union and employer achieved a collective agreement, even though the employer had not yet signed the formal document.

Consequently, the termination application was dismissed as untimely.

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 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.

The applicant trade union sought a declaration that it was the successor trade union to an association.

The responding party employer argued the association was not a "trade union" under the Labour Relations Act because it permitted managerial employees to be members.

The Board held that the admission of non-employees into membership does not preclude an organization from being considered a trade union under the Act.

The Board directed the parties to a pre-hearing conference to resolve remaining issues.

The Minister referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 3(2) of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, asking whether Branch 133 Legion Village is a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Act.

The Board concluded that the Village, which provides residential accommodation and health care assistance for seniors, qualifies as a 'home for the aged' and therefore falls within the statutory definition of a hospital.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 3(2) of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act regarding whether Barclay House, a retirement home, is a hospital within the meaning of the Act.

The Board advised the Minister that Barclay House is a hospital because it is a home for the aged.

The Board found that a major component of the service offered by Barclay House is the observation and assessment of its aged residents, which satisfies the statutory definition, regardless of whether the observation is strictly medical in nature.

The applicant trade union alleged that the responding employer violated section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act by using replacement workers during a lawful strike.

The employer challenged whether the strike was authorized by a secret ballot vote as required by section 74(4).

The Board found that the strike vote was conducted in an open manner where union officials and other employees could observe how ballots were marked.

Consequently, the strike vote did not meet the statutory requirement for a secret ballot, meaning the replacement worker prohibitions in section 73.1 did not apply.

The application and a subsequent request for reconsideration were dismissed.

The applicant union alleged that a sale of a business occurred when the predecessor hospital transferred its laboratory services to the successor hospital.

The hospitals conceded the sale but argued that the operations and employees were intermingled, justifying the termination of the union's bargaining rights.

The Board found that intermingling had occurred and that the union's proposed bargaining unit, limited to the 'stat' laboratory at the predecessor hospital, was not appropriate due to the integration of the services.

Given that the unionized employees constituted a small minority of the successor's paramedical staff, the Board declined to order a representation vote and declared the union's bargaining rights terminated effective the date of the sale.

The union applied for a declaration that Sanford's Roadhouse Restaurant was a successor employer to the Waverly Hotel and therefore bound by its collective agreement.

The predecessor hotel had closed, and its assets were seized by a creditor.

Thirteen months later, the purchaser bought the building and some chattels, extensively renovated the premises, and opened a restaurant with a different business focus.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while certain assets were transferred, an ongoing enterprise was not.

The Board concluded there was no sale of a business and dismissed the application.

The union filed an application alleging the employer violated section 41.1 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to negotiate an adjustment plan following the announcement of a major workforce reduction.

During the proceedings, the parties engaged in collective bargaining and reached a new collective agreement that addressed the rights of surplus employees.

The employer argued the application was moot.

The Board agreed, finding that the parties had practically resolved the issues by negotiating adjustment plan matters during collective bargaining.

The Board dismissed the application on the grounds of mootness and declined to grant remedial relief, noting it would serve no labour relations purpose.

The applicant trade union alleged that the employer discharged two internal union organizers during an organizing drive for reasons related to their trade union activities, in violation of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the employer's explanations for the discharges were implausible and that the decisions were tainted by anti-union animus.

The Board also found that the employer's subsequent work assignments upon the employees' interim reinstatement were discriminatory and constituted further violations of the Act.

The Board ordered the permanent reinstatement of the employees with compensation for lost wages.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by prohibiting editorial employees from wearing union buttons while meeting with the public on company business.

The Board found that wearing union buttons to support collective bargaining objectives is a lawful union activity protected by the Act.

The Board concluded that the employer's rule was inconsistently applied and motivated, at least in part, by an anti-union animus, thereby violating sections 65 and 67 of the Act.

A declaration of the violation was issued, though no further remedy was ordered.

The applicant union applied for certification.

During a teleconference with a Labour Relations Officer, the parties agreed on the bargaining unit description and the employee list, and the count was released showing the applicant in a certifiable position.

The responding party later retained new counsel and sought to resile from the agreed bargaining unit description, requesting the Board exercise its discretion under section 6(1) of the Labour Relations Act to amend it.

The Board declined to permit the responding party to resile from its agreement, finding no extraordinary circumstances to depart from its general rule that parties cannot alter their positions on the bargaining unit structure after the count has been given.

The Board found the agreed unit appropriate and directed the responding party to clarify its legal identity.