S. C. Laing

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by demoting and disciplining an employee due to his involvement in a union organizing drive.

The employer maintained that the discipline was imposed for bona fide business reasons, specifically the employee's history of inappropriate conduct towards truck drivers and causing delivery delays.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the employer had discharged its burden of proving that its actions were free of anti-union animus and were instead based on legitimate business concerns regarding the employee's behaviour.

The applicant union sought leave to withdraw its application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, after the matter had been the subject of full hearings before the Board.

Having regard to the submissions of the parties, the Board dismissed the application.

The applicant union sought certification for an all-employee bargaining unit.

A representation vote was held, and the results hinged on the ballots of a group of workers paid by a temporary employment agency but working at the responding party's premises.

Following the vote, both parties reversed their positions on whether these workers were employees of the responding party.

The Board applied the K Mart criteria and determined that the responding party was the true employer, as it exercised overriding day-to-day control.

The Board refused to allow the responding party to propose a new, separate bargaining unit for the agency workers after the vote, finding the single all-employee unit appropriate.

A certificate was issued.

The Board considered the order in which to hear an application for a first contract arbitration and an application for termination of bargaining rights.

The union had filed the first contract application months before the termination application was filed.

The majority of the Board directed that the first contract application be considered first, as the union had acted expeditiously and the statutory requirements for a first contract, if met, would have given rise to the circumstances making the termination application timely.

The Board also declined to order a representation vote at this time.

One Board Member dissented, arguing a representation vote should be held and the ballot box sealed.

The applicant filed a complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging reprisals for raising health and safety concerns, which included allegations of a racially poisoned work environment and physical hazards.

The responding party brought a preliminary motion requesting the Board defer to the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Board found that the essence of the complaint was racial discrimination and harassment, which falls squarely within the specialized jurisdiction of the Commission under the Human Rights Code.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 50(3) of the OHSA to decline to inquire into the matter and dismissed the application.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The responding party employer requested the application be dismissed without a hearing, arguing that a previous unsuccessful application by the international union within the past year barred this application under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Alternatively, the employer requested no vote be held until the threshold question was decided.

The Board declined to dismiss the application or delay the vote, directing that a representation vote take place and allowing the employer to raise the bar issue later.

A dissenting Board member would have ordered the ballot box sealed pending the determination of the bar issue.

The applicants filed a complaint alleging that the employer imposed two-week suspensions as a reprisal for their work refusal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The workers had refused to work after discovering the production line was running faster than the specified cycle time.

The Board found that the work refusal was not justified under the Act, as the workers did not have a reasonable belief that the increased line speed endangered them.

However, exercising its discretion under section 50(7) of the Act, the Board found the two-week suspensions were not just and reasonable.

The Board substituted lesser penalties of a five-day suspension for one worker and one-day suspensions for the other two.

The Board considered whether to give effect to a representation vote in a certification application by CAW-Canada Local 195, given a prior one-year bar imposed on the national union, CAW-Canada.

The employer argued that section 10(3) of the Labour Relations Act barred the local union's application, or alternatively, that the Board should exercise its discretion under section 111(2)(k) to refuse to entertain it.

The Board held that section 10(3) applies only to the same trade union applicant, and Local 195 is a distinct legal entity from the national union.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to refuse the application, noting that a competing application by the UAW would have resulted in a vote anyway.

The Board certified Local 195 based on the vote results.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board heard a procedural motion to determine which party should call its evidence first in an application involving a conflict of interest objection under section 14(4).

The majority of the Board directed the employer to call its evidence first, reasoning that the employer possessed the specific knowledge regarding the alleged conflict of interest and that requiring the union to prove a negative across hundreds of sites would unnecessarily prolong the proceedings.

The applicant union applied for certification and proposed a specific bargaining unit.

The responding hospital initially proposed a different unit but later agreed in writing to the applicant's proposed unit.

A representation vote was held based on this agreement.

On the eve of the vote, the hospital attempted to argue it had only agreed to a voting constituency, not the bargaining unit itself, and claimed the unit would cause undue fragmentation.

The Board held that the statutory scheme does not permit a 'qualified' agreement on a bargaining unit description.

The hospital was bound by its agreement, and the Board found the agreed-upon unit to be appropriate.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

In an application for certification, the respondent university requested that faculty members on sabbatical and unpaid leave be permitted to vote by mail-in ballot.

The applicant faculty association opposed the request.

A majority of the Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the request, citing the administrative burden and the statutory mandate for quick representation votes under Bill 7.

The Board held that mail-in ballots are generally only ordered in limited circumstances, such as when employees are dispersed far from the employer's premises or upon agreement of the parties.

Board Member Laing dissented, arguing that denying affected employees the opportunity to vote thwarts their democratic rights.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to determine whether the employer, Meadowcroft Holdings Inc., is a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA).

The employer operates a retirement living centre providing accommodation, meals, and varying degrees of medical and personal care to elderly residents.

The Board applied an institutional approach rather than a purely labour relations approach, focusing on the nature of the care provided rather than the potential impact of a strike.

The Board concluded that the employer's focus on the accommodation, observation, assessment, and supervision of aged residents qualifies it as a home for the aged, and therefore it is a 'hospital' under the HLDAA.

The applicants sought declarations and directions regarding an anticipated work stoppage by the responding trade unions in support of the 'Days of Protest' against the provincial government.

The Board found that the planned concerted refusal to work during the term of a collective agreement constituted an unlawful strike under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, notwithstanding its political purpose.

The Board exercised its discretion to issue declaratory relief and cease-and-desist directions, noting the applicants' unsuccessful efforts to accommodate the protest and the unions' clear intention to disrupt production.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of security guards employed by the responding party in Ottawa.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed unit were members.

The Board directed a representation vote, with segregated ballots for disputed positions, and deferred consideration of the responding party's objection under section 14(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to a future hearing.

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) brought an application alleging that union leaders and organizations breached section 83 of the Labour Relations Act by encouraging protesters to picket TTC sites during the 'Days of Protest', which would cause TTC employees to engage in an unlawful strike.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that verbal statements constitute 'acts' under section 83 and that the provision's restriction on Charter rights of expression and assembly is demonstrably justified.

The Board concluded that two union leaders breached the Act and issued cease and desist orders restricting picketing at TTC access points to ensure employees could work, while dismissing the application against a third leader and the organizations.

A dissenting member argued that section 83 should not apply to political speech and that the restrictions were not justified under the Charter.

The applicant applied for termination of the union's bargaining rights.

The union responded with allegations of employer initiation under section 63(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and had a pending application for first contract arbitration under section 43.

The Board deferred ordering a representation vote and directed that the termination application be heard together with the first contract arbitration application.

The applicant union (OPSEU) filed a work assignment dispute under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, challenging the Hospital's decision to reassign respiratory and cardiac testing work from Cardio-Pulmonary Technicians to Registered Nurses and SEIU members.

The Hospital argued the transfer to a 'point of care' model would improve efficiency and patient care.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the Hospital's decision was made for bona fide operational reasons and that the OPSEU collective agreement did not expressly prohibit the transfer of work out of the bargaining unit.

The applicant trade union applied for certification, and a representation vote was held.

The responding employer sought to dismiss the application, alleging that a union representative accosted and spoke to employees outside the building where the polling station was located, thereby violating the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board dismissed the employer's request, finding no prima facie case that the union representative intimidated, coerced, or unduly influenced voters.

The Board noted that electioneering outside the polling area is permissible absent improper conduct.

As more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, a certificate was issued.

The employer applied under sections 1(4) and 64 of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration of related employer status and a finding of a sale of business, which were largely agreed upon by the responding trade unions.

The employer sought to consolidate multiple geographic-specific bargaining units into a single all-employee unit, arguing that an intermingling of employees had occurred following the integration of the acquired businesses.

The Board found that while there was some operational integration and minor personnel movement, it did not constitute the thorough intermingling of employees contemplated by section 64(6) that would necessitate dismantling the existing bargaining structures.

The Board dismissed the employer's request to restructure the bargaining units, concluding that the existing geographic-specific units remained viable and the employer remained bound by the existing collective agreements.

The applicants alleged that the responding union violated section 79(9) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by establishing a ratification and strike vote procedure that was not reasonably convenient and did not provide ample opportunity to cast ballots.

The union had to organize a vote for approximately 65,000 employees across 4,000 work sites within 14 days.

The Board found that the union's voting arrangements, which included scheduling specific times and places while accommodating individual requests for changes, were sensible and responsive to diverse employee needs.

The Board held that 'reasonable convenience' under section 79(9) requires considering all circumstances, including the union's logistical challenges, and does not guarantee a vote during working hours or at the workplace.

The application was dismissed.