R. W Pirrie

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.

A group of employees filed a petition objecting to the certification.

The Board found that the objecting employees, who were unrepresented, failed to adduce first-hand evidence regarding the origination and circulation of the petition, and failed to account for its custody.

Consequently, the Board gave no weight to the petition.

As the union demonstrated membership support of more than 55 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit, the Board granted the application and issued the certificates.

The complainant was discharged from her employment at a car dealership shortly after refusing to perform a paint inventory due to noxious fumes.

The employer claimed the discharge was solely due to her poor performance, which had been a concern for months.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the complainant had exercised her right to refuse unsafe work under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Applying the reverse onus, the Board concluded the employer failed to prove that the discharge was entirely unrelated to the work refusal, noting the suspicious timing and the employer's trivialization of her health concerns.

The complaint was allowed.

The complainant, representing former employees of Massey-Ferguson, alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by negotiating a substandard settlement for termination and severance pay.

The respondent union and the intervener employer moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it did not disclose a prima facie case and that there was extreme delay in filing.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the complainants failed to plead sufficient material facts to establish an arguable case.

Furthermore, the Board exercised its discretion under section 89 to decline to inquire into the complaint due to an unexplained delay of two to three years, which caused extreme prejudice to the parties who had relied on the executed settlement.

The complainants alleged that the respondent Union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by negotiating and signing a collective agreement for franchised stores without submitting it to the membership for ratification.

The Board found that the Union's officers honestly and reasonably believed that a prior agreement, which had been ratified by the membership, authorized them to enter into the franchise agreement without a further vote.

The Board concluded that the Union did not act in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the respondent employer.

The employer alleged that the union's membership evidence was unreliable because an employee had threatened another employee with job loss and higher initiation fees if he did not join the union.

The Board found that the employee who made the statements was not acting as a collector or agent for the union, but was merely a rank-and-file employee trying to influence a friend.

As peer pressure does not invalidate membership evidence, the Board found the evidence reliable and granted the certificate.

The union subsequently withdrew its unfair labour practice complaint.

The applicant union applied for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The union alleged that the employer failed to make reasonable and expeditious efforts to conclude a collective agreement and maintained uncompromising positions without reasonable justification.

The Board found that the employer's insistence on including anti-union philosophy language from its personnel manual and an overly broad job security clause restricting the union's ability to bargain regarding outsourcing with other employers constituted uncompromising positions without reasonable justification.

The Board concluded that the collective bargaining process had been unsuccessful due to these positions and directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The applicant, an employee and son of the employer's co-owner, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union argued the statement of desire was involuntary due to the family relationship between the applicant, two other employee relatives, and the employer.

The Board found no evidence of employer interference or that the family relationship impaired the employees' ability to voluntarily express their true wishes.

The Board concluded the statement of desire was voluntary and directed a representation vote.

The union applied for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration.

After the hearing concluded but before the decision issued, an application to terminate the union's bargaining rights was filed.

The Board issued its decision directing arbitration without being aware of the termination application.

Upon reconsideration, the Board determined that it was appropriate under section 40a(22) of the Labour Relations Act to consider the first contract application before the termination application, given that the first contract hearing was substantially complete.

The termination application was therefore dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The respondent employer alleged that the union's membership evidence was obtained through intimidation or coercion, in violation of section 70 of the Labour Relations Act, because a union representative told an employee he would be removed from the site if he did not sign a union card.

The Board found that the union representative was merely explaining the consequences of enforcing a sub-contract clause in the general contractor's collective agreement.

The Board concluded there was no improper conduct, accepted the membership evidence, and issued the certificates.

The applicant parent union applied for certification shortly after its local union's application for the same unit was dismissed and a six-month bar was imposed.

The respondent employer objected, arguing that the parent and local were the same entity under the union's constitution, or alternatively, that the Board should exercise its discretion to refuse the new application.

The Board held that the parent union and its local are distinct trade unions under the Labour Relations Act.

Finding no compelling reason to exercise its discretion to bar the parent union's application, the Board dismissed the respondent's objections and directed that the application be entertained.

One Board Member dissented.

The applicant unions sought declarations under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that a sale of a business had occurred between K & Z Construction Ltd. and Yola Construction Ltd., or alternatively, that the two companies were related employers under common control or direction.

K & Z had ceased operations due to financial difficulties, and one of its owners subsequently became a part-owner of Yola, an existing business.

The Board dismissed the section 63 application, finding no transfer of a functional economic vehicle.

The Board also declined to exercise its discretion to make a related employer declaration under section 1(4), concluding that doing so would inappropriately extend rather than preserve the unions' bargaining rights, as the new owner brought no meaningful part of K & Z's business to Yola.

The complainants, a group of former employees, alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under the Labour Relations Act regarding settlements obtained following a plant closure.

The Board ruled on several preliminary objections, finding that the Coalition itself was not a proper complainant, and dismissing allegations under sections 50 and 52(5) of the Act.

The Board affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the section 68 complaint despite the involvement of Employment Standards Act entitlements.

Finally, the Board found the complainants had not provided sufficient particulars of the alleged misconduct and directed them to file written particulars before the hearing could proceed.

The United Steelworkers of America applied for certification to represent employees at the respondent's manufacturing plant.

Although the union demonstrated membership support exceeding 55%, a group of objecting employees filed a petition opposing certification, which would normally trigger a representation vote if found voluntary.

The Board determined the petition was not voluntary, as it was circulated by an employee perceived to have managerial authority and following a meeting with an owner that sparked widespread rumours of plant closure if the union succeeded.

Concluding that the signatures were likely influenced by fears for job security and perceived management involvement, the Board declined to order a vote and granted the certificate.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a tag-end unit of employees at Transit Windsor.

The Board first found that the applicant was a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, given its fifty-year history of collective bargaining.

The respondent argued that operations supervisors should be excluded based on a 1979 Board decision that excluded their predecessors (transit inspectors) from another unit, and urged the Board to dismiss that part of the application without an inquiry.

The Board declined to apply res judicata or estoppel, noting the passage of ten years and a change in job titles, and appointed a Board Officer to inquire into their duties.

Finally, despite disputes over the status of more than half the proposed bargaining unit, the Board issued an interim certificate under section 6(2) of the Act, finding that the disputes were not insuperable barriers to the commencement of meaningful collective bargaining.

The applicant union applied for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The union argued that collective bargaining was unsuccessful due to the employer's uncompromising position on benefits without reasonable justification.

The employer refused to maintain the high level of benefits previously enjoyed by the unorganized employees, proposing instead a two-tiered system where new hires would receive lower community-standard benefits.

The Board found that the employer's position was designed to send a message that unionization would cost employees their benefits, which was not a reasonable justification.

The Board directed the settlement of the first collective agreement by arbitration.

The union applied for certification and filed unfair labour practice complaints against the employer, alleging interference during an organizing campaign.

The Board found that the employer violated sections 64, 66, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act by interrogating employees, discriminatorily prohibiting union solicitation, and transferring union organizers to isolate them.

However, the Board dismissed the application for certification under section 8, concluding that the employer's contraventions did not create a situation where the true wishes of the employees were unlikely to be ascertained.

The Board ordered remedial relief, including a cease and desist order, a posting, and the provision of an employee list to the union.

The applicant union brought an application alleging a sale of business from Ameri-Cana Motel Limited to a numbered company, seeking to bind the numbered company to the provincial collective agreement.

The respondents argued the union had abandoned its bargaining rights, which were originally obtained by certification in 1972.

The Board found that the union failed to take reasonable steps to monitor the employer's construction activities between 1973 and 1977, despite the employer operating from a fixed location where ongoing construction was visible.

Consequently, the Board concluded the union had abandoned its bargaining rights prior to the advent of province-wide bargaining in 1978, and dismissed the application.

The employer filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the union bargained in bad faith by failing to correct the employer's mistaken assumption that a cost-of-living allowance (COLA) freeze continued into the new collective agreement.

The employer argued the union knew of the mistake and capitalized on it.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding no misrepresentation by the union.

The Board held that the union was entitled to expect the employer to be familiar with the terms of the collective agreement and had no obligation to question the employer's monetary offer.

The applicant union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

At the hearing, the union sought leave to file a supplementary statement containing new material facts, which the respondent opposed.

The Board denied leave, citing the strict time limits and requirements of Practice Note 18.

The union also moved for a direction based solely on the pleadings and the existence of a lengthy strike, which the Board also denied, noting that evidence was required to establish the statutory prerequisites.

Following these rulings, the union sought leave to withdraw its application, and the Board terminated the matter.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to allow a specific union representative on company premises for meetings.

The employer's refusal stemmed from a past incident where the representative exhibited aggressive behaviour.

The Board found that the employer's conduct was motivated by a personal conflict rather than anti-union animus.

The Board declined to intervene, concluding the matter was best resolved through collective bargaining rather than statutory remedies, and dismissed the complaint.