R. W Pirrie

The complainant, a volunteer deputy fire chief, alleged he was removed from his position for seeking enforcement of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board found that while the complainant was dedicated and knowledgeable, he was also narrow-minded and confrontational.

The Township council dismissed him because they viewed him as a troublemaker who undermined the relationship between council and the fire department, not because of any anti-safety animus.

The reprisal complaint under section 24 of the Act was dismissed.

The complainant union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of elevator wiring work to members of another union.

After several adjournments of the pre-hearing conference, the complainant sought leave to withdraw the complaint, which the respondents opposed, arguing the complaint should be dismissed.

The Board noted that the complainant failed to offer any explanation for its request to withdraw and that the complaint appeared ill-conceived and without prima facie merit.

The Board denied the request for leave to withdraw and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant, a probationary control centre operator, alleged he was discharged in reprisal for requesting his supervisor not to smoke in his presence, contrary to the Occupational Health and Safety Act and The Smoking in the Workplace Act.

The employer maintained the discharge was solely due to performance issues, including poor communication with the public and reading on duty.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding the employer's reasons credible and untainted by anti-safety animus, noting the discharge was prompted by complaints from a superior unaware of the smoking dispute.

In an application for certification, the union objected to the Labour Relations Officer disclosing the membership count before the list of employees was finalized.

The union argued this invited gerrymandering of challenges.

The Board dismissed the objection, clarifying that while parties must finalize their positions on the employee list before the count is announced, all challenges do not need to be fully resolved or litigated first.

The officer's disclosure was consistent with the Board's longstanding practice.

A Labour Relations Officer was appointed to inquire into the remaining dispute regarding the employee list.

The Board held a hearing to determine the compensation owed to the complainant following a finding that she was unlawfully discharged for a work refusal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The employer argued that compensation should be reduced due to the complainant's failure to mitigate damages, her delay in filing the complaint, and her receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

The Board found that the complainant made reasonable efforts to mitigate her damages and declined to deduct unemployment insurance benefits from the award.

However, the Board reduced the compensation period by 16 weeks due to an unexplained delay in filing the complaint.

The employer was ordered to pay $10,242.18 in compensation and interest.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Two employees filed a petition objecting to the certification and requested an extension of the terminal date, arguing that the Notice to Employees had not been posted for an adequate period.

The Board found that the notice had been posted for 2.5 days prior to the terminal date, which was sufficient time for the objecting employees to file their petition.

As no employees were shown to be prejudiced by the posting period, the Board declined to extend the terminal date and granted the certificate.

The Ontario Nurses' Association filed applications under sections 1(4) and 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act, along with an unfair labour practice complaint under section 89, against Carecor Health Services Inc. and numerous hospitals.

The union alleged that the hospitals formed Carecor to provide a pool of agency nurses to avoid their collective agreement obligations.

The Board dismissed the allegations under sections 50 and 66 for failing to disclose a prima facie case, but allowed the section 64 complaint to proceed.

The Board directed the union to provide particulars of its allegations and ordered that the section 1(4) application and the remaining section 89 complaint be heard together.

The section 106(2) application was adjourned pending the disposition of the other matters.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent, an agency assisting individuals with developmental disabilities.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description except for the inclusion of four Home Support Workers.

The employer argued these workers were dependent contractors or lacked a community of interest with other staff.

The Board found the Home Support Workers were employees under the Labour Relations Act and shared a sufficient community of interest with the other support workers.

The Board included them in the bargaining unit and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer contravened the Labour Relations Act by discharging an employee who was the primary union organizer.

The employer claimed the employee had quit after leaving work early due to illness and leaving his keys and gas card on a desk.

The Board applied the reverse onus under section 89(5) of the Act, requiring the employer to prove its actions were free of anti-union animus.

The majority of the Board found the employer's conclusion that the employee quit was not credible and that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proof.

The Board ordered the employee reinstated with full compensation and directed the employer to post a notice of employees' rights.

In an application for certification by the Operating Engineers, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined the composition of the bargaining unit for the purposes of the count.

Applying the Gilvesey test, the Board examined the duties performed by several disputed individuals on the application date.

The Board found that certain mechanics and dependent contractors who spent a majority of their time performing bargaining unit work on the application date were included in the unit, while others who primarily performed labourers' work or worked outside the geographic area were excluded.

Having resolved the list of employees, the Board found the union had the requisite membership support and issued certificates for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector and all other sectors in the relevant geographic area.

The complainant employer filed a complaint under section 89(7) of the Labour Relations Act alleging that the respondent union and employee breached the confidentiality clause of a prior settlement agreement.

The settlement, which resolved an occupational health and safety complaint, required the employer to pay $7,500 to the union and included a strict confidentiality provision.

Months later, the employee and a union official disclosed to a newspaper reporter and another employee that a cash settlement had been paid.

The Board found that disclosing the fact of a cash payment, even without specifying the amount or the exact payee, constituted a breach of the confidentiality requirement.

The Board ordered the union to repay the $7,500 to the employer as stipulated in the settlement.

The complainant, a wood-working shop employee, was laid off on his first day back from a Workers' Compensation absence.

Prior to his lay-off, he had repeatedly raised health and safety concerns regarding the shop's condition, including the lack of safety guards and a defective dust collector door that had previously injured him.

On the day of his lay-off, he refused to work due to these unsafe conditions and was subsequently terminated.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving that the lay-off was untainted by the complainant's exercise of his rights under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board ordered the complainant reinstated with compensation.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's shop.

The parties disputed whether four employees participating in a federal Work Sharing Program should be classified as full-time or part-time, and whether separate full-time and part-time bargaining units were appropriate.

The Board found that the employees in the Work Sharing Program were historically full-time employees subject to a temporary reduction in hours to avoid layoff.

Concluding that there was no history of part-time employment and that all employees shared a community of interest, the Board determined that a single all-employee bargaining unit was appropriate and granted the certificate.

The union applied for certification of a tag-end bargaining unit including Operations Supervisors at Transit Windsor.

The employer argued that the Operations Supervisors exercised managerial functions and should be excluded under section 1(3)(b) of the Act.

The majority of the Board found that the Operations Supervisors exercised significant disciplinary powers, including issuing warnings and suspensions, which created a conflict of interest with bargaining unit employees.

The Board concluded that the Operations Supervisors exercised managerial functions and excluded them from the bargaining unit.

A dissenting member would have included them, finding their disciplinary role to be merely administrative.

The applicant union applied for certification of carpenters employed by the respondent.

The respondent argued it had no employees, claiming the two individuals in question were independent contractors.

The Board examined the relationship, noting the individuals were paid piecework rates, supplied only their labour and tools, and were economically dependent on the respondent.

The Board concluded they were dependent contractors and therefore employees under the Labour Relations Act, and issued certificates to the applicant.

The applicants sought a declaration terminating the respondent union's bargaining rights for employees at the intervener's store.

The applicants submitted two petitions in support of decertification.

The Board assessed whether the petitions represented a voluntary expression of the employees' true wishes.

The Board found that the primary applicant was an unreliable witness and that the signatures were obtained in circumstances where employees might reasonably infer management support, particularly given the employer's non-solicitation policy, the posting of a petition on a visible bulletin board, and the involvement of an employee with a close nexus to management.

The Board concluded the applicants failed to establish voluntariness and dismissed the application.

One Board member dissented.

The union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed petitions (statements of desire) opposing the application.

The Board held hearings to determine the voluntariness of these petitions.

Evidence showed that management held captive audience meetings, questioned an employee about union membership, and that the petitions were circulated during working hours in areas frequented by management.

The Board concluded that the objectors failed to meet the onus of establishing that the petitions were voluntary, as employees would reasonably suspect management involvement.

The Board found the union had the requisite membership support for certification, pending resolution of remaining bargaining unit composition issues.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of the respondent's employees.

The parties disputed whether four temporary agency workers were employees of the respondent for the purposes of the Labour Relations Act.

Applying the criteria from K Mart Canada Limited, the Board found that the respondent exercised overriding control over the workers, including directing their duties, bearing the ultimate burden of their remuneration, and controlling discipline and discharge.

The Board concluded the four persons were employees of the respondent and included them in the bargaining unit for the purposes of the count.

The Board also directed a hearing to determine the voluntariness of a petition filed by employee objectors.

The complainant, a strander operator, was instructed to fill holes in the plant parking lot with gravel.

He refused to put more gravel in his wheelbarrow, citing concerns that he might hurt himself due to the terrain and the wheelbarrow's condition.

The employer's general foreman sent the complainant home for the afternoon without conducting an investigation as required by the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board found that the complainant's work refusal was based on honestly held safety concerns and that the employer unlawfully disciplined him by imposing a half-day suspension.

The employer was ordered to compensate the complainant for lost wages and benefits.

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

The Board dismissed the application with respect to the non-ICI sector as untimely, having been brought less than six months after certification.

For the ICI sector, the union argued the Board should exercise its discretion to refuse to entertain the application due to the short time since certification.

The Board held it had no such discretion under section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act because the union's prior certification application was not 'unsuccessful'.

Despite the applicant having admitted to lying to the Board in the prior certification proceedings regarding the origination of a petition, the Board found his testimony in the current proceeding plausible and concluded the new petition was a voluntary expression of employee wishes.

A representation vote was ordered.