S. C. Laing

The applicant union referred two construction industry grievances to the Board, alleging the responding party employer violated the subcontracting provisions of the Provincial Agreement.

The employer disputed the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the work fell outside the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector and requested a sector determination.

The Board held that it had jurisdiction to arbitrate the grievances and that a sector determination was unnecessary, as the Provincial Agreement's terms extended to all sectors where the union held bargaining rights with the employer.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of registered and graduate nurses.

The parties disputed whether the Discharge Planning Co-ordinator should be excluded from the unit under section 1(3) of the Labour Relations Act due to managerial functions or confidential capacity.

The Board found that while the incumbent did not exercise managerial functions, her regular participation in monthly department managers' meetings exposed her to confidential information regarding the employer's collective bargaining strategies and grievance handling.

Consequently, the Board concluded that her inclusion would create a conflict of interest and excluded the position from the bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for a determination of whether a Records Management Co-ordinator was an 'employee' under the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer argued the position should be excluded because the incumbent had access to confidential labour relations documents.

The Board found that while the employee had access to such documents, she was not required to read or understand their contents to perform her filing duties, and such documents comprised a very small percentage of her work.

The Board concluded she was not employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations and was therefore an employee within the meaning of the Act.

The applicant union sought leave to withdraw its application for certification after the Board identified a potential irregularity in the membership evidence.

The employer opposed the withdrawal, arguing that the Board should proceed with the application on its merits to investigate the alleged forgery, especially since the union filed a second, identical application on the same day it sought to withdraw the first.

The Board held that the union's decision not to rely on the questionable membership evidence inherently carried the penalty of losing that support and delaying its certification efforts.

The Board found no abuse of process and noted that any limitation on employees' ability to oppose the second application arose from the statutory framework, not the union's conduct.

Following its usual practice when a request to withdraw is made after a meeting with a Board Officer, the Board dismissed the application.

A dissenting member would have denied the request to withdraw, noting that the union was not abandoning its claim to represent the employees.

The applicant union sought a declaration that Zellers was bound by the collective agreement between the union and Woolworth, arguing that a sale of a business had occurred under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

Woolworth had terminated its lease in a shopping mall, and the landlord subsequently negotiated a new lease with Zellers.

Zellers completely renovated the premises and hired its own employees, with only five former Woolworth employees being hired through a standard application process.

The Board applied an instrumental analysis and found that no operational entity or constituent components of Woolworth's business had passed to Zellers, other than the physical location.

The application was dismissed as no sale of a business took place.

The employer applied to combine two bargaining units.

The union raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 7(1) of the Labour Relations Act because the two units were represented by different local unions.

The Board found that neither local had proven its trade union status before the Board, nor had there been a declaration of a transfer of jurisdiction from the national union to the locals.

Therefore, the national union remained the bargaining agent for both units, giving the Board jurisdiction to consider the combination application.

The applicant union brought an application under section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act regarding a strike of counter attendants and car jockeys.

The responding party employer challenged whether the strike vote met the statutory requirements for ample opportunity to vote and secrecy of the ballot.

The Board found that the notice provided was sufficient and that the voting arrangements, while not perfect, provided a secret ballot process that employees could opt out of, satisfying the requirements of the Act.

As the strike had ended, the matter was terminated.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to determine whether North Yorkers for Disabled Persons Inc., a group home providing 24-hour attendant care to physically disabled adults, is a 'hospital' under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The employer argued that the care provided was not medical and that the residents were capable of directing their own care.

The Board concluded that the extensive personal care provided to the residents, who suffer from physical illnesses or injuries, constitutes 'observation, care or treatment' within the meaning of the Act.

The Board advised the Minister that the facility is a hospital under the Act, with one member dissenting.

The applicant employer sought relief against the respondent union, alleging that picketing behaviour during a lawful strike contravened several provisions of the Labour Relations Act and caused undue disruption.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application on the pleadings.

The Board found that section 11.1 did not apply because the picketing occurred on a public roadway, not on premises to which the public normally has access.

Furthermore, the Board concluded that the union's alleged conduct did not constitute an unlawful strike, nor did it violate the prohibitions against intimidation or coercion under sections 71 and 73, as the employer's right to operate its business is not a statutory right protected by the Act.

The union applied for certification for two of the employer's grocery stores.

The employer and a group of objecting employees raised preliminary issues regarding the timeliness of petition documents, the sufficiency of the union's membership evidence, and the propriety of the union's campaign literature.

The Board ruled that the petition in the first file was untimely, but the petition in the second file was timely.

The Board dismissed the employer's objections to the membership evidence, finding that the lack of a witness signature and the pre-signing of the receiver's line did not invalidate the cards.

The Board also found that the union's campaign literature did not improperly trade on the Board's neutrality.

The Board certified the union for the first store and directed a further hearing for the second store.

The union alleged that the employer violated the statutory freeze under section 81 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to pay a 3% wage increase to employees earning under $30,000.

The employer argued that the increase was contingent on funding from the City of Ottawa, which was not provided due to budget constraints.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the wage increase was not a guaranteed term or condition of employment, and that 'business as usual' for the employer included responding to budget constraints imposed by the City.

The union applied to certify a bargaining unit of security officers and to combine it with an existing full-time bargaining unit.

The employer argued that section 6(6) of the Labour Relations Act precluded the combination because the security officers monitored other employees, creating a conflict of interest.

The Board agreed, finding that the statutory requirement for a separate guards unit under section 6(6) could not be circumvented by a combination application.

The certification was granted for a separate unit, but the combination application was dismissed.

The applicant employer, a cleaning company providing services to a community college, applied for a determination under section 73.2(12) of the Labour Relations Act to use specified replacement workers during an anticipated strike.

The employer argued that replacement workers were necessary to prevent danger to life, health, and safety under section 73.2(3) by maintaining minimum cleaning standards at the college.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that even if the college operated at full capacity, the employer had sufficient managerial personnel available to perform the minimum cleaning necessary to prevent such danger without the need for specified replacement workers.

The applicant union filed an application under section 64.2 of the Labour Relations Act alleging a deemed sale of a business from the predecessor employer to the responding party security services company.

The responding party failed to file a response by the terminal date, despite acknowledging receipt of the notice.

The union requested that the Board apply Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure to deem the facts accepted and grant the application without a hearing.

The Board found that the pleaded facts established a deemed sale of a business, as the predecessor ceased providing security services at the site and the responding party subsequently provided substantially similar services.

The Board applied Rule 19, deemed the facts accepted, and granted the application, declaring that a sale of a business had occurred and that the union's bargaining rights continued.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent the Meat Department employees of the responding party.

Objecting employees filed a statement of desire opposing representation by a different union, which the Board gave no weight because it predated the membership cards and referred to a different organizing drive.

The employer alleged that a union organizer engaged in intimidation during a prior organizing drive, but the Board dismissed the allegations without a hearing, finding no nexus to the current application.

Satisfied that more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit had applied to become members, the Board granted the application and issued a certificate.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees at the responding party's restaurant in Ottawa.

The employer argued that the bargaining unit should be restricted to the specific street address rather than extending municipality-wide.

The Board dismissed the employer's objection, applying its policy of granting municipality-wide units where an employer operates a single establishment in the municipality, as the employer failed to demonstrate serious labour relations difficulties.

The Board also accepted an undated membership card after hearing evidence that it was signed within the requisite six-month period.

Finding that more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the bargaining unit were members, the Board ordered a certificate to issue.

The applicant union filed an application under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act regarding a jurisdictional dispute over a newly created Health Promotion Officer position assigned to the responding union's bargaining unit.

The applicant claimed the position should be in its bargaining unit because the occupant was a registered nurse.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the issue was a dispute over which bargaining unit a particular individual falls into based on their status, rather than a dispute over which trade union has the right to claim the performance of particular work.

The Board concluded the matter was not properly before it as a jurisdictional dispute and should be resolved through arbitration.

The union applied for certification.

Two employees alleged they were intimidated and coerced by union organizers into signing membership cards, and requested that the Board dismiss the application.

The Board held a hearing and found that the statements made by the organizers did not amount to intimidation or coercion, but rather constituted typical social pressure and salesmanship during an organizing drive.

The Board concluded that the employees had simply changed their minds about supporting the union after signing the cards.

As the union filed membership evidence on behalf of over 55% of the employees, the Board dismissed the allegations and certified the union.

The applicant union filed a complaint alleging that the employer improperly assigned occasional teacher work to members of another union.

The employer and the responding union argued that the dispute involved interpreting the Education Act and should be left to the Minister of Education.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that it has jurisdiction under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act to resolve work assignment disputes, even if the assignment might also violate another statute.

The Board directed the parties to file lists of tasks, witnesses, and evidence in preparation for a hearing.

The applicant union applied to certify a bargaining unit of 17 security officers and to combine it with an existing full-time bargaining unit of approximately 6,000 employees.

The employer opposed the combination, arguing that under section 6(6) of the Labour Relations Act, the security officers' duties of monitoring other employees would give rise to a conflict of interest if they were included in the same unit.

The Board heard evidence regarding the security officers' duties, which included monitoring access, conducting investigations, and preparing reports that could lead to discipline.

The Board concluded that the monitoring duties raised a real possibility of a conflict of interest, satisfying the test under section 6(6), and remitted the matters back to the parties.