S. Liang

The applicant union applied for certification.

A preliminary issue arose regarding the applicant's ability to accept the proposed bargaining unit employees into membership.

In a prior decision, the Board had dismissed an application because the union's constitution did not permit such membership.

The union subsequently amended its constitution at a Special Meeting.

An intervenor argued the amendment was invalid because the constitution required amendments to be made at an annual conference.

The Board held that the procedures used were substantially consistent with the union's internal rules, noting the delegates at the Special Meeting were identical to those entitled to vote at the annual conference.

The Board concluded the amendment was effective and the union could admit the employees into membership.

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 union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer, alleging intimidation and the retaliatory layoff of a key union supporter during an organizing drive.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by interrogating and threatening one employee and abruptly laying off another upon discovering the union's presence.

Concluding that the employer's swift and severe actions made it unlikely that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained, the Board granted certification under section 9.2 of the Act.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the union violated section 74(4) of the Labour Relations Act by failing to conduct a strike vote by secret ballot.

The union raised a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint due to undue delay.

The Board found that the applicant was aware of the alleged irregularities at the time of the vote but delayed filing the complaint for nearly two months, during which time the union and employer relied on the strike mandate and commenced a strike.

The Board concluded that the delay was significant and unexplained, and exercised its discretion to dismiss the application without inquiring into the merits.

The union filed an application alleging the employer violated section 41.1 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to negotiate an adjustment plan following the announcement of a major workforce reduction.

During the proceedings, the parties engaged in collective bargaining and reached a new collective agreement that addressed the rights of surplus employees.

The employer argued the application was moot.

The Board agreed, finding that the parties had practically resolved the issues by negotiating adjustment plan matters during collective bargaining.

The Board dismissed the application on the grounds of mootness and declined to grant remedial relief, noting it would serve no labour relations purpose.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of employees at the responding party's medical centre.

The employer and a group of objecting employees argued that medical technologists should be excluded from the unit due to a lack of community of interest with office and clerical staff.

The Board applied the test from Hospital for Sick Children, finding that the proposed unit would not generate serious labour relations difficulties and was therefore appropriate.

The Board issued a certificate to the applicant.

The employer subsequently requested reconsideration of the Board's refusal to adjourn the hearing and its decision to grant the certificate.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no obvious error or new evidence to warrant varying its decision.

The applicants, employees of a daycare centre, sought interim reinstatement under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act after being terminated shortly after presenting collective demands to their employer.

The employer argued the Act did not protect them as they were not formally represented by a trade union.

The Board found an arguable case that the employees' rudimentary efforts to organize for collective bargaining were protected under the Act.

Concluding that the balance of harm favoured the applicants, the Board ordered their interim reinstatement pending the disposition of the main unfair labour practice complaint.

The union referred several grievances to arbitration, alleging that the municipal employer violated the subcontracting provision of the collective agreement by engaging outside contractors not in contractual relations with the union.

The Board interpreted the subcontracting provision, which was imposed during first contract arbitration, as restricting the employer's ability to let subcontracts but not prime contracts.

Applying this distinction, the Board dismissed five of the six grievances, finding that the contracts in question were either prime contracts, involved maintenance rather than construction work, or did not involve work covered by the collective agreement.

One grievance was allowed, as the Board found the contract was in the nature of a subcontract for work that would otherwise have been performed by the employer's own employees.

The union filed a grievance against the employer for violating the subcontracting provision of the provincial collective agreement by subcontracting final clean-up work to a non-union company.

In a prior decision, the Board found the employer liable.

In this remedy phase, the employer argued the union must prove that a union subcontractor had the specific expertise and equipment to perform the work.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that the union only needed to prove it had unemployed members available to perform the work, which it did.

The Board found the union entitled to damages for lost work opportunities and directed the parties to finalize the calculations.

The union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board seeking unpaid wages and benefits from the corporate employer and its director personally.

The employer had been petitioned into bankruptcy.

The Board found the corporate employer liable for the unpaid amounts under the collective agreement.

However, the Board dismissed the claim against the director personally, holding that its jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act to interpret employment-related statutes does not extend to enforcing statutory director liability under the Business Corporations Act or Employment Standards Act against a person who is not a party to the collective agreement.

In an application for certification, a dispute arose regarding the appropriate bargaining unit.

The applicant union and the employer sought a single 'all-employee' unit, while the incumbent union argued for separate units for nursing staff and other employees.

The Board found that the single unit proposed by the applicant was appropriate, noting the established bargaining history and the community of interest among the employees.

The Board directed that all ballots cast in the pre-hearing representation vote be counted together.

The applicant requested production of certain documents.

The respondent did not dispute relevance but argued that health legislation and professional obligations imposed standards of confidentiality on health professionals regarding medical information.

The Board ordered the respondent to produce the documents, subject to an agreement that they would only be disclosed to the Board and counsel, who must preserve their confidentiality.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board was asked to make a sector determination regarding the construction of an underground concrete water storage tank.

The applicant union argued the work fell within the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector, while the responding employer and intervenor union argued it was in the heavy engineering or sewer and watermain sectors.

Applying the test from The Heavy Construction Association of Toronto, the Board found that the tank's end use was part of a sewage treatment and water pollution control process, which is industrial in nature.

The Board concluded that the building of the water storage tank is work in the ICI sector of the construction industry.

The Labourers' International Union filed a complaint concerning a work assignment by Nicholls Radtke Limited regarding the stripping of formwork at a co-generation project.

The employer had assigned the work to the Labourers, which the Carpenters grieved.

The Board determined that, based on the employer's past practice, the original written assignment, and area practice, the assignment to the Labourers was incorrect.

The Board ruled that the Carpenters have jurisdiction over the releasing, removal, and dismantling of formwork where the materials are intended to be re-used for forming purposes.

The applicant union sought an interim order under section 92.1(1) of the Labour Relations Act to prohibit the employer and the union from engaging in economic sanctions, including strikes and lock-outs, pending the disposition of an application under section 7 to combine two bargaining units.

The parties were in a legal strike/lock-out position for the "outside unit", while the "office unit" had already ratified a tentative agreement.

The Board dismissed the request for an interim order, finding that the actions sought to be prohibited were lawful under the Act.

The Board concluded that the potential harm of not granting the order was outweighed by the unusual and intrusive effect such an order would have on the established collective bargaining process.

The union applied for interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking the reinstatement of several employees and the restoration of duties and hours for others, pending the hearing of an unfair labour practice complaint.

The Board found that the union had established an arguable case that the employer's actions were motivated by anti-union animus during an organizing drive.

Concluding that the balance of harm favoured granting the relief to preserve the employees' ability to freely participate in union activities, the Board ordered the interim reinstatements and the posting of a notice in the workplace.

The applicants filed a complaint concerning a work assignment dispute between the Carpenters and the Labourers regarding the carpentry portion of concrete forming work for outdoor structures on three construction projects.

The Labourers argued the work fell within a distinct 'landscaping sector' and requested a sector determination hearing.

The Board declined to hold a separate hearing, finding it could determine the sector issue within the consultation process.

The Board concluded the work was in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector and declined to recognize a separate landscaping sector.

Relying on a trade agreement between the unions and area practice, the Board directed that the work be assigned to the Carpenters.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied for certification and sought to remove the phrase 'employed in a nursing capacity' from the standard bargaining unit description, or alternatively, to include the positions of Nurse Clinician, Pharmacy Technician I, and Discharge Planner/Infection Control Nurse within that definition.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to alter the standard craft-like bargaining unit description for nurses.

However, the Board found that the incumbents in all three disputed positions were required by the hospital to hold a Registered Nurse qualification and were expected to possess the training and skills of a nurse to perform their duties.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the positions were 'employed in a nursing capacity' and included them in the bargaining unit.

One Board Member dissented regarding the inclusion of the Pharmacy Technician I position.

The applicant unions sought interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to prevent the responding school boards from imposing specific vacation weeks on employees during the summer.

The unions alleged that the employers' actions violated the freeze period under section 81 and constituted an unlawful lock-out under section 74.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the applications, finding that while the unions may have an arguable case on some issues, the balance of harm did not favour granting interim relief.

Granting the orders would effectively give the unions a total victory without a hearing on the merits, and any harm to employees could be remedied through compensation if the unions ultimately succeeded.

Following a finding that the union violated its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to intervene prior to the applicant's discharge, the Board held a hearing to determine the appropriate remedy.

The Board ordered the extraordinary remedy of reinstating the applicant to his former position with the intervenor employer, finding that the discharge would likely have been avoided but for the union's breach.

The Board also ordered the union to compensate the applicant for nine months of lost wages, reducing the compensation period due to the applicant's failure to fully mitigate his damages and his own contributory conduct.