S. H. Lewis

The applicant union applied for certification and filed sufficient membership evidence for automatic certification.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing the union.

The Board found that the petition lacked evidence of custody during a period of its circulation and was signed by a foreman.

Consequently, the Board gave no weight to the petition, declined to order a representation vote, and granted the certification.

The complainant alleged he was discharged contrary to section 24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after raising concerns about frayed electrical cables on vacuum cleaners.

The Board found that the complainant's communications with management primarily focused on criticizing his supervisor's competence rather than raising specific safety hazards.

The Board concluded the discharge was motivated by the complainant's insubordinate conduct and his inappropriate method of communicating complaints via a client's log book, which embarrassed the employer, rather than any attempt to enforce the Act.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employers failed to employ union members and hire through the union office.

The respondents submitted that the employer bargaining agency and the currently hired employees should receive notice of the proceedings.

The Board found that the employer bargaining agency was an interested party and that the employees were liable to be directly and adversely affected by the arbitration.

The Board directed that notice of the proceedings be given to both the employer bargaining agency and the affected employees.

The applicant local union applied for certification shortly after its parent national union lost a representation vote and was subjected to a six-month bar on further applications.

The respondent employer argued that the bar against the national union should also apply to the local union, alleging that the organizing campaign was so intertwined that employees would have been confused as to which entity they were voting for.

The Board held that the national and local unions are separate legal entities.

Finding that the employees were not misled or confused by the campaign materials, the Board concluded that the bar against the national union did not operate against the local union.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant association applied for certification as a trade union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer had continuously interfered with the affairs of the association, including referring the association to a management consultant, discussing the legality of the association and the right to strike, and allowing organizational meetings on paid time.

Consequently, the Board held that the applicant was not a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1)(n) of the Labour Relations Act and that certification was prohibited under section 12 due to employer participation and support.

The application was dismissed.