S. Cooke

The United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) applied under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration that it was the successor to the Kraus Carpet Employees Association following a merger.

The respondent employers argued the Association lacked the power to merge without unanimous member consent and that the voting procedure was flawed.

A complainant employee also alleged the merger process breached the union's duty of fair representation under section 68.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that unanimous consent was not required for a trade union to merge under the Act, and that the single vote to amend the constitution and approve the merger was sufficient.

The Board declared the UFCW the successor union and dismissed the section 68 complaint.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the respondent employer violated a residential collective agreement.

The central issue was whether the employer was bound to the agreement for low-rise residential construction based on a 1972 voluntary recognition agreement.

The Board found that the 1972 voluntary recognition agreement explicitly excluded low-rise residential construction.

Subsequent accreditation of the employers' organization did not expand the scope of the union's bargaining rights.

Therefore, the employer was not bound by the residential agreement for low-rise construction, and the grievance was dismissed.

The applicant union sought certification to represent employees of a non-profit training school.

The evidence revealed that the union and the employer were inextricably intertwined, with the union's president also serving as the president of the employer's board of directors, and the union's president having actively encouraged the employees to join the union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the inherent conflict of interest and the employer's participation in the union's administration violated section 13 of the Labour Relations Act, which prohibits the certification of a trade union that has received employer support.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint and an application for consent to prosecute the employer, arising from the reorganization of the employer's business.

The union had also filed grievances under the collective agreement which were proceeding to arbitration.

The Board deferred the unfair labour practice complaint to arbitration, noting the substantial overlap in issues, evidence, and remedies, and retained jurisdiction to ensure the matter proceeds expeditiously.

The Board also adjourned the application for consent to prosecute.

The applicant filed an application for certification.

The Board required the applicant to prove its status as a trade union under the Labour Relations Act.

Evidence showed the applicant's constitution was adopted after the application was filed, and membership evidence predated the constitution without reaffirmation.

The Board found the applicant was not a trade union at the time of filing and dismissed the application.

The complainant, a union health and safety representative, alleged that the respondent, a Ministry of Labour manager, violated sections 70 and 3 of the Labour Relations Act by threatening to dissolve the joint health and safety committee and threatening the complainant with 'big trouble' if he shared committee information with the NDP.

The Board found that the respondent's statements, while perhaps ill-advised, were motivated by a genuine desire to improve the dysfunctional 'internal responsibility system' at the workplace and to further the objectives of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, rather than to intimidate the complainant or cover up employer violations.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union sought to set aside a representation vote, alleging that the intervener union breached the Board's silent period by campaigning in the days immediately preceding the vote.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's representative had waived any objection to the regularity of the balloting by signing a Consent and Waiver form prior to the counting of the ballots.

Furthermore, the Board concluded that the isolated technical breach of the silent period did not unfairly influence the outcome of the vote.

A certificate was issued to the intervener.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the incumbent union breached sections 3 and 70 of the Labour Relations Act by posting a notice on a bulletin board threatening to charge members who supported the complainant's organizing campaign.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the notice did not threaten the employees' continued employment, as section 46(2) of the Act protects employees from discharge if they are expelled from an incumbent union for supporting a rival union.

The threat of expulsion from membership alone did not constitute intimidation or coercion within the meaning of section 70.

The applicant union requested a determination under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act regarding the employee status of certain individuals.

The respondent employer objected, arguing the union was seeking to alter an established status quo.

The Board found that a question had arisen between the parties that could not be resolved during collective bargaining, fitting squarely within section 106(2).

The Board appointed a Board Officer to inquire into the duties and responsibilities of the disputed individuals, noting that historical agreements on bargaining unit configuration do not freeze the unit in perpetuity, though they may be relevant evidence.

The applicant union filed a construction industry certification application.

The respondent, a non-profit service organization, argued it was not the 'employer' of the workers on its recreation centre project, asserting that the federal and provincial governments funding the project under 'make-work' programs were the true employers or joint venturers.

The Board applied the York Condominium tests to determine employer status.

Despite the government funding and controls, the Board found that the respondent exercised fundamental control over the incidents of employment and was therefore the employer within the meaning of section 117(c) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A dispute arose regarding the composition of the bargaining unit, specifically whether engineering staff should be included.

The Board appointed an officer to inquire into the bargaining unit composition and the managerial status of certain employees.

The applicant union objected to the continued participation of employee objectors, arguing their standing was limited to the voluntariness of their petition.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that the rules of natural justice and the Board's procedures entitle affected employees to notice and an opportunity to make representations on all issues in a certification application, not just membership support.

The applicant union sought certification without a vote under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act following a representation vote in which it did not obtain majority support.

The union alleged improper conduct by the respondent employer and the intervener association.

The Board found that the allegations, even if proven, did not make out a prima facie case for certification without a vote.

As the union did not seek any other remedy, the application for certification was dismissed with a six-month bar.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer and an objecting employee argued that the union's membership evidence should be rejected or a representation vote ordered because the union used a two-tiered initiation fee ($1.00 now, $300.00 later) and allegedly coerced employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed the union's organizing tactics and found that the two-tiered fee was properly explained and allowed employees to join for the lower fee up until a first contract was signed.

The Board concluded that the union's conduct did not cross the line into misrepresentation, coercion, or intimidation.

Finding that over 55 percent of the employees were members, the Board certified the union without a vote.

The applicant union alleged that the respondent car dealership's contracting out of its rustproofing and washing work to a sub-contractor constituted a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively, that the dealership and the sub-contractor were related employers under section 1(4).

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed both applications.

The Board found that the transfer of work alone did not constitute a sale of a business, as the sub-contractor merely continued a pre-existing business from a new location leased from the dealership.

Furthermore, the Board held that the two firms were not under common control or direction, as the sub-contractor independently managed its employees and performed work for other clients.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The respondent employer challenged the union's membership evidence, alleging that a union organizer engaged in improper conduct by offering to buy an employee's car, find a job for her boyfriend, and accepting a conditional payment of the membership fee.

The Board dismissed the employer's charges, finding that the organizer's conduct did not cross the bounds of acceptable salesmanship into coercion or fundamental misrepresentation, and that the conditional payment was not improper.

The Board consolidated the certification application with a related unfair labour practice complaint to hear evidence regarding a statement in opposition filed by objecting employees.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging he was discharged for refusing unsafe work under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

He experienced allergic reactions when using a grinder.

The Board dismissed the complaint on a preliminary basis, finding the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case.

The work place did not present a general hazard, the applicant's reaction was exceptional, and he failed to pursue his request for a face mask before his termination.

The complainant union alleged that the employer committed an unfair labour practice by discharging its local union president.

The employer requested an adjournment at the hearing, which was denied due to lack of evidence of hardship.

The employer's counsel then withdrew.

The Board heard uncontradicted evidence that the employer had previously refused to recognize the grievor as a shop steward, demanded he give up union activities, and discharged him shortly after he was re-elected as union president.

The Board found the discharge violated the Labour Relations Act, ordered immediate reinstatement with full compensation, and directed the employer to post a notice and cease interfering with the union.

Sixteen employees filed an unfair labour practice complaint against their employer, Dufferin Aggregates, alleging that the employer was attempting to destroy the union by assigning work to another company.

The union declined to join the complaint.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the employees lacked status to bring the complaint without the union's support and that the Board should defer to arbitration.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that individual employees have status to bring a complaint under section 66(a) of the Labour Relations Act to protect their individual rights, even without union support.

The Board also declined to defer to arbitration, as the complaint alleged a breach of the Act rather than merely a violation of the collective agreement.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of occasional teachers.

Following a representation vote in which the union was successful, a group of objecting employees sought to have the vote set aside.

The objectors argued that a clerical error in the street address on the Notice of Taking of Vote, the use of segregated ballots, and the application of the Board's thirty-day rule compromised the vote.

The Board dismissed the objections, finding no evidence that the address error prevented anyone from voting or that the segregation of ballots departed from usual practice.

The Board declined to direct a new vote and ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection arguing that the reverse onus provision in section 89(5) of the Labour Relations Act violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically the presumption of innocence and the right not to be compelled as a witness.

The Board dismissed the objection, following its previous jurisprudence that the reverse onus is a matter of evidence and procedure, not a presumption of guilt.

A request for an adjournment to apply to the courts was denied, and the Board proceeded to hear the complaint.