S. Liang

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights shortly after the union applied for first contract arbitration.

The Board previously determined it would consider the first contract application before the termination application.

During the first contract hearings, the employer and union reached a settlement, and the Board issued a consent order directing the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

Consequently, pursuant to the mandatory language of section 43(23) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board dismissed the termination application, rejecting arguments that doing so violated the employees' Charter rights.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether Bellwoods Centre for Community Living Inc. is a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA).

Bellwoods provides support services to physically disabled adults to enable independent living.

Applying the factors from the Red Cross decision, the Board concluded that the services provided are essential to the health and safety of the clients, who are highly dependent on them.

The Board advised the Minister that Bellwoods is an 'other institution' and therefore a 'hospital' under the HLDAA.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The employer and the incumbent union argued the application was untimely under section 7(6) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, because the collective agreement had automatically renewed.

The employer also argued its labour relations were governed by the Canada Labour Code, not provincial legislation.

The Board deferred holding a representation vote and directed the parties to provide written submissions on the timeliness and constitutional jurisdiction issues.

The applicants filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.

The Board requested submissions on the timeliness of the application.

The union provided a document showing a conciliation officer was appointed on December 8, 1995.

The applicants argued it was unfair to apply the Board's rules regarding the application date and alleged the union sought conciliation to thwart the application.

The Board found no compelling reason to waive its rules and noted it is not improper for a union to time a conciliation request strategically.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicants filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.

A discrepancy arose regarding the number of employees in the bargaining unit, with the applicants claiming 54, the employer claiming 56, and the union claiming 63.

The Board directed the union to indicate whether it disputed the employer's schedule and to provide documentary evidence, and directed the employer and applicants to respond accordingly.

The union filed multiple applications for certification for different bargaining units of the employer.

The employer argued that the union was abusing the process to impose a statutory freeze on terms and conditions of employment, and requested that the Board impose a bar on further applications or order a representation vote.

The Board found no evidence of duplicitous conduct by the union, noting that the appropriate bargaining unit was genuinely in dispute.

The Board declined to impose a bar or order a vote, granted leave to withdraw the earlier applications, and issued a certificate to the union for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The Perth and Smiths Falls District Hospital applied under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act to merge certain bargaining units following the amalgamation of the Smiths Falls Community Hospital and the Great War Memorial Hospital.

The Hospital argued that the merger resulted in an intermingling of employees, justifying the consolidation of bargaining units represented by CUPE, OPSEU, and ICTU.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that while services and management had been integrated, there was no significant intermingling of employees or transfer of job opportunities between the two locations that would call into question the logic of the existing bargaining structures.

The union applied for interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking the reinstatement of a key union supporter whose employment was terminated shortly after the union was certified.

The employer argued the termination was for economic reasons and that the position was no longer required.

The Board found an arguable case that the termination was related to union activities and concluded that the labour relations harm to the union outweighed the harm to the employer.

The Board ordered the interim reinstatement of the employee pending the hearing of the main unfair labour practice complaint.

The applicant union sought an order determining the effective date for the combination of several bargaining units at various retail stores of the responding party employer.

The Board had previously ordered the combination but reserved on the effective date.

The employer argued the combination should be effective only when every unit had entered into a collective agreement, while the union sought an immediate combination.

The Board found no reason to delay the combination, noting that deferring would not eliminate implementation complexities and that concluding terms for the units would be reached against the framework of an eventual combined unit.

The Board ordered the bargaining units combined effective immediately.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation by agreeing to withdraw his classification grievance as part of a Social Contract negotiation with the government.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the events occurred before the Labour Relations Act applied to Crown employees.

The Board further held that even if it had jurisdiction, the complaint was untimely due to a 20-month delay, and on the merits, the union did not act arbitrarily in balancing the interests of individual grievors against the preservation of jobs for the bargaining unit as a whole.

The union applied for remedies after the Board previously found the employer violated the replacement worker provisions of the Labour Relations Act by using independent contractors to perform bargaining unit work during a strike/lockout.

Recognizing that a cease and desist direction was impractical, the Board ordered the employer to pay damages for its continuing violations.

The Board held that the union suffered a loss of bargaining power and quantified the damages based on the delivery charges that would have been payable under the collective agreement for the work that would have been performed by the bargaining unit member.

The applicant union applied for certification to displace the incumbent union representing employees of the Ottawa Board of Education.

A pre-hearing representation vote was held, which the applicant won.

The Board raised the issue of whether the membership evidence filed met the requirements of section 9 of the Labour Relations Act, which requires that employees be 'members' of the trade union, as opposed to section 8 which allows for persons who 'have applied to become members'.

The majority of the Board held that the membership evidence, which stated the employee was making an application and agreeing to be bound by the union's constitution, was sufficient to establish membership for the purposes of section 9.

The Board certified the applicant union.

One Board member dissented, arguing the evidence only showed an application for membership, not actual membership.

The applicant union sought to combine several bargaining units at various retail stores in Ontario under section 7 of the Labour Relations Act.

The responding employer argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction to combine units that had already given notice to bargain and invoked statutory negotiation processes, and alternatively, that doing so would cause serious labour relations problems.

The Board held that it had jurisdiction to combine the units regardless of the stage of collective bargaining.

The Board found that combining the units would facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining and reduce fragmentation, and directed the combination of the units, while reserving on the effective date to allow the parties to address transitional issues.

The Minister referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether Goderich Place Retirement Residence is a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The Board found that the residence, which provides shelter, care, and assistance with daily living for the elderly, qualifies as a 'home for the aged' and therefore falls within the statutory definition of a hospital.

A dissenting board member disagreed with the application of the Act to this type of residence.

The applicant union applied for certification.

During the hearing, it was revealed that the union's main organizer had signed membership cards as a 'witness' without actually observing the employees signing them.

The employer and objecting employees argued this irregularity, along with allegations of intimidation and coercion by the organizer, should invalidate the membership evidence.

The Board found that the organizer's misrepresentation on the cards was innocent and did not undermine the reliability of the evidence.

The Board also dismissed the allegations of intimidation, finding no objective basis for them.

The Board certified the union, with one member dissenting on the reliability of the membership evidence.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

A group of objecting employees requested a representation vote, alleging undue pressure and misrepresentation during the organizing drive, including claims that employees were told they could have their signed cards returned.

The union brought a motion requesting the Board not inquire further into the allegations.

The majority of the Board granted the union's motion, finding that the alleged pressure amounted to persistence and salesmanship rather than intimidation or coercion.

The majority also held that even if two cards were discounted due to alleged misrepresentations about returning them, the union still had sufficient support for automatic certification.

A certificate was issued to the union.

One Board member dissented in part, stating they would have inquired further into the misrepresentation allegations and ordered a secret ballot vote.

During a hearing for a union certification application and unfair labour practice complaint, an issue arose regarding the witnessing of union membership cards.

The union requested the Board not inquire further into the issue.

The Board ruled it would hear evidence on the witnessing of the cards but declined to conduct a broad inquiry into the Form A-4 declaration, citing the need to protect the secrecy of membership evidence under section 113 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also admitted new evidence from objecting employees regarding additional cards, despite late disclosure, but adjourned that portion to allow the union time to prepare.

The applicant union sought interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to prohibit the employer from relocating planing mill operations to a sawmill facility, or alternatively, an order assigning the planing work to its members pending the disposition of related unfair labour practice and work assignment complaints.

The employer planned to consolidate operations, taking the position that the relocated work would fall under the respondent union's collective agreement.

The Board found an arguable case for the work assignment but concluded the balance of harm did not favour granting interim relief, as the applicant did not challenge the employer's right to transfer operations and a temporary reassignment of work would cause equal prejudice to the respondent union.

The application for interim relief was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The responding employer alleged that a former supervisor, acting on behalf of the union, used intimidation and coercion to convince employees to join, and requested a representation vote under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found no evidence that the supervisor was acting on behalf of the union or that her statements about potential job losses and shift changes constituted threats or undue influence.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and granted the certification.

The union alleged that the employer violated the replacement worker provisions of the Labour Relations Act by using independent brokers to deliver aggregate during a strike/lockout.

The bargaining unit consisted of dependent contractors who delivered stone using tandem, single axle, and tractor trailer vehicles.

The Board found that the employer did not violate the Act by continuing to use independent brokers for tractor trailer deliveries that were consistent with past practice or driven by customer demand.

However, the Board found a violation of section 73.1 with respect to the work formerly performed by the sole bargaining unit member who drove a tractor trailer, as independent contractors were performing his work during the dispute.

The Board directed the parties to make submissions on the appropriate remedy.