R. W Pirrie

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit consisting of all full-time meat department employees of the responding party.

The responding party argued that the proposed unit was no longer a 'craft' unit under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act, claiming the employees no longer exercised technical skills distinguishing them from other employees.

The Board found that the meat cutters and wrappers continued to exercise technical skills and constituted a craft unit.

Finding that more than 55% of the employees in the unit were members of the applicant, the Board granted the application and issued a certificate.

The employer applied for reconsideration of a decision certifying the union, and certain employees filed a section 91 application alleging that a union organizer made false representations and unduly influenced employees when collecting membership evidence.

The Board found the union organizer to be a credible witness and preferred his evidence over that of the employer's witnesses.

The Board concluded that the organizer did not misrepresent the certification process, the level of union support, or the consequences of a potential sale of the business.

The applications for reconsideration and under section 91 were dismissed.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer discharged employees for joining the union.

The employer did not appear, relying on an ex parte Order obtained under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) which it claimed stayed the Board's proceedings.

The Board reserved its decision on whether the CCAA Order immunized the ongoing business from provincial employment legislation and the Labour Relations Act, noting the potential conflict with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Board directed its counsel to appear in Court the following day to seek clarification on the impact of the CCAA Order on the ongoing litigation.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether the labour relations between Charterways Transportation Limited and its unions fall within federal or provincial jurisdiction.

Charterways operates bus services across Ontario, including regular extra-provincial charters.

The unions argued that each local branch constituted a separate provincial undertaking.

The Board applied the test for federal undertakings and concluded that the core undertaking is the province-wide bus services, not the individual branches.

Because the province-wide undertaking includes regular and continuous extra-provincial charter activity, the Board advised that the labour relations between the parties fall within federal jurisdiction.

The applicant union sought interim relief pending the final disposition of an unfair labour practice discharge complaint.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found an arguable case for the relief requested and that the balance of harm favoured the applicant.

The Board directed the responding party employer to reinstate the two discharged employees on an interim basis and to post a notice to employees regarding their rights under the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant union sought interim relief in a dispute over bargaining rights at A & P stores.

The Board had previously ordered the status quo maintained regarding local union representation.

The applicant alleged the employer breached this by cancelling leaves of absence for its supporters while maintaining them for the rival union's supporters, and by allowing the rival union to designate new representatives.

The Board granted interim relief, directing that customary union representatives continue to handle workplace issues and ordering the employer to reinstate the cancelled leaves of absence to ensure neutrality pending the final decision on bargaining rights.

The applicant union sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to reinstate an employee who was allegedly discharged for his union organizing activities.

The responding party employer contended that the employee was discharged for stealing cigarettes.

The majority of the Board dismissed the application, finding that the potential harm to the employer of reinstating an employee discharged for theft outweighed the financial harm to the employee and the alleged chilling effect on the union's organizing drive, particularly given the delay in bringing the application.

A dissenting Board member would have granted the interim reinstatement.

The applicant union, Local 75, brought an application under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act claiming that the business of the Skyline Triumph Hotel had been transferred to the responding parties, Accomodex and Kelloryn, who reopened it as a Howard Johnson Hotel.

The responding parties argued it was merely a transfer of idle assets following a closure and receivership.

The Board found that the transaction constituted a sale of a business within the meaning of the Act, as the new owners acquired the core asset configuration and continued to operate the same kind of business from the same location, thereby preserving the union's bargaining rights.

The union applied for certification to represent employees of a company engaged in ship maintenance and repair.

The company challenged the Ontario Labour Relations Board's constitutional jurisdiction, arguing its activities were integral to shipping and thus fell under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Board found that the overwhelming majority of the company's ship repairs were performed while ships were docked over the winter months, lacking the necessary operational integration with the core federal shipping undertakings.

The Board concluded the company's operations fell within provincial jurisdiction and granted the certification.

The applicant trade union filed a complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act and requested an expedited hearing under section 92.2.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, both parties jointly requested an adjournment sine die to pursue settlement discussions.

The Board granted the adjournment for a maximum period of three months, noting that while the Act emphasizes expedition, the prime objective is the resolution of the dispute.

The applicant unions filed grievances alleging that the responding party violated the Mainline Pipeline Agreement by failing to apply it to the manufacture and supply of concrete from a permanent batching plant in Cochrane.

The concrete was supplied to a contractor manufacturing concrete weights for a pipeline project.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the manufacture and supply of concrete from a permanent facility is not construction work covered by the Pipeline Agreement, distinguishing it from portable batching plants used on-site.

One Board Member dissented in part regarding the Teamsters' agreement.

The employer applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights under section 60(2) of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the union failed to commence bargaining within 60 days of giving notice.

The union gave notice to bargain in July 1992 but did not pursue negotiations despite the employer's attempts to schedule dates.

The Board found the union's explanation of internal re-alignment unsatisfactory but noted the union continued to actively represent employees in grievances.

The Board exercised its discretion to order a representation vote.

The applicant, a professional engineer employed by Ontario Hydro, applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent trade union under section 61 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant alleged that the union was not entitled to represent the employees at the time it entered into a voluntary recognition agreement with the employer, citing issues with the inclusion of managerial employees, the lack of a separate vote for professional engineers, and alleged improprieties in the ratification vote.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the ratification vote was fair and appropriate, the inclusion of managerial employees did not invalidate the agreement, and section 6(4) of the Act regarding separate votes for professional engineers did not apply to voluntary recognition agreements.

The Board concluded that the union enjoyed the support of the vast majority of employees, including professional engineers, at the time the agreement was entered into.

The Board previously directed the respondent to reinstate the complainant and compensate him for his losses.

The parties were unable to resolve the amount of compensation, specifically whether the complainant satisfied his obligation to mitigate his losses.

The Board found that the complainant made reasonable efforts to mitigate his losses by searching for jobs, registering with Manpower Temporary Services, and contacting numerous firms.

The respondent was directed to fully compensate the complainant for his losses, with interest.

The applicant filed an application for termination of the union's bargaining rights, alleging the union obtained its certificate by fraud, and also sought reconsideration of a previously dismissed termination application.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the applications on the grounds that they did not disclose a prima facie case, were untimely, and lacked particulars.

The Board dismissed the application for reconsideration, finding no new evidence or policy grounds to justify reopening the matter.

The Board also dismissed the fresh application for termination, holding that the allegations of fraud lacked the necessary particularity under Rule 72 and that the delay of over two years in raising the allegations was unacceptable and prejudicial to the ongoing collective bargaining relationship.

The applicant applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

A representation vote was held, resulting in a tie.

The employer requested that an employee who was absent on the day of the vote be permitted to vote by proxy, by mail, or upon returning to work.

The Board denied the request, noting that the employer had agreed to the vote date and had signed a consent and waiver form immediately after the vote, agreeing to an immediate count and waiving any objections to the regularity of the balloting.

As not more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union, the application was dismissed.

The union applied for certification and submitted documentary evidence of membership for more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit.

A group of objecting employees filed an anti-union petition, and the union subsequently filed a reaffirmation document signed by employees confirming their support for the union.

The objectors alleged that union supporters engaged in intimidation and harassment, including threats to job security and physical safety.

The Board found the allegations of misconduct unsubstantiated and concluded that the union's membership evidence was reliable.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and granted certification.

Following a finding that the complainant was unlawfully discharged for raising safety concerns after a workplace injury, the Board held a hearing to determine compensation.

The Board awarded $500 in damages for mental distress, finding that the abrupt and unlawful termination exacerbated the complainant's existing post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Board also awarded $1,700 for dental work that would have been covered by the employer's benefits plan had the complainant not been unlawfully discharged, as well as outstanding vacation pay.

One Board member dissented on the award of mental distress damages.

The complainant filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the union, identical to a prior complaint that had been withdrawn following a meeting with a Labour Relations Officer.

The union raised a preliminary objection that the withdrawal constituted a final settlement of the matter.

The Board found that the prior complaint had been settled during the officer's meeting, rejecting the complainant's assertion that he withdrew it only to refile and obtain a different officer.

The preliminary objection was upheld and the complaint was dismissed.

One Board Member dissented.

The complainant employer association alleged that the respondent union breached its duty to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union had insisted on a single province-wide collective agreement for the elevator industry and refused to negotiate a separate agreement for non-ICI work, while negotiating separate non-ICI agreements with individual employers during a lawful strike.

The Board found that the union was bargaining within the scope of its rights and did not violate the Act by pressing its position to impasse or by making interim agreements with individual employers.

The complaint was dismissed.