S. O'Flynn

The respondent employer requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsider its decision finding that construction inspectors were employees and not excluded by reason of exercising managerial functions.

The employer argued that the Board ignored compelling evidence and that the 14-month delay in issuing the decision prejudiced its expectations.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no new evidence was adduced, no error in its holistic assessment of the evidence, and that delay alone does not justify reconsideration, especially where it would prejudice the union's representation rights.

The employer applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of the employment status of eleven individuals, arguing they should be excluded from the bargaining unit under section 1(3)(b) because they exercised managerial functions or were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

The Board reviewed the duties and responsibilities of each individual, including benefits clerks, human resources assistants, payroll clerks, and occupational health nurses.

The Board concluded that only the Benefits Clerk was employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations and should be excluded.

The remaining ten individuals were found to be employees under the Act and properly included in the bargaining unit.

Following a finding that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices by unlawfully reassigning an employee to a lower-paying position, the parties disputed the quantum of compensation.

The employer argued the employee failed to mitigate his damages by electing to take a layoff rather than accepting the lower-paying reassignment.

The Board held that given the employer's pattern of unlawful discrimination and the employee's reasonable expectation of quickly finding alternate employment at full pay, his decision to take a layoff was a reasonable attempt to mitigate his losses.

The employee was awarded full compensation for the period of his unemployment.

The union applied for a declaration that Current River Foods Ltd. was a successor employer to Canada Safeway Limited under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, following the transfer of a retail food store lease and the sale of fixtures and inventory.

The employer argued it had merely acquired idle assets to start a new, distinct business.

The Board applied the 'Dutch Boy' line of cases, emphasizing the importance of location in the retail food industry.

The Board found that the employer's acquisition of the premises, fixtures, and inventory, and its efforts to retain the existing customer base, constituted a sale of part of Safeway's business.

The employer was declared bound by the existing collective agreement.

The complainant trade union alleged that the employer committed unfair labour practices during collective bargaining by refusing to disclose a salary survey, refusing to provide particulars of existing salaries and proposed adjustments, communicating directly with employees to disparage the union, and unilaterally implementing salary adjustments during the statutory freeze period.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer violated sections 15, 64, 67, and 79 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the employer to cease and desist, bargain in good faith, produce the salary survey, compensate the union and employees for losses, and post a notice of its violations.

The applicants sought a declaration that A & P was a successor employer to New Dominion Stores Inc. following a corporate reorganization, and that an intermingling of employees had occurred, justifying the termination of Local 206's bargaining rights or a representation vote.

The Board found that a sale of a business had occurred and A & P was bound by the collective agreement with Local 206.

However, the Board found no intermingling of employees and declined to order a representation vote.

To resolve the conflict between the provincial agreement and Local 206's agreement, the Board amended both agreements to confine Local 206's rights to the specific Chatham store.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The employer filed a list of employees, and a group of employees filed a petition opposing the certification, including some who had previously signed union membership cards.

The Board inquired into the voluntariness of the petition, which was circulated by a working foreman who, while not managerial, had a special relationship with the employer.

The Board found that the foreman's involvement could reasonably influence employees to sign the petition to avoid exposing their union allegiance.

Consequently, the Board declined to give weight to the petition and certified the union based on its documentary evidence of membership.

During a hearing for an unfair labour practice application, the respondent union sought production of notes that a complainant witness had used to refresh his memory prior to testifying.

The witness did not refer to the notes during his examination-in-chief.

The Board held that ordering production of such notes is a matter of discretion.

The Board declined to order production because the respondent failed to establish the factual basis for the exercise of discretion, such as the time elapsed between the witness referring to the notes and giving evidence, and because notes prepared for counsel are privileged.

The union applied for certification.

The employer argued that membership evidence collected by an employee, Mr. Pyle, should be discounted because he threatened other employees with job loss if they did not sign union cards.

The Board found that Mr. Pyle did make such threats.

As a result, the Board declined to give full weight to the membership evidence and ordered a representation vote to ascertain the true wishes of the employees.

One Board member dissented, arguing that employers should not be permitted to participate in certification hearings regarding membership evidence.

In an unfair labour practice complaint alleging termination for union activities, the respondent sought to introduce polygraph evidence to prove his lack of anti-union animus.

The complainant union objected, citing the Employment Standards Act's prohibition on lie detector tests in employment.

The Board ruled the polygraph evidence inadmissible, finding that its introduction would put employees at a tactical disadvantage and undermine the legislative intent protecting employees from such tests.

A dissenting member would have allowed the evidence to be considered for its relevance.

The applicant union filed a grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act seeking remittances from the respondent employer.

The employer argued it was not bound by the collective agreement, alleging the union representative misrepresented the terms of a voluntary recognition agreement before it was signed.

The Board found no material misrepresentation, concluding the employer simply misunderstood the scope of the agreement.

The Board declared the employer bound by the Provincial Agreement and remained seized of the quantum of damages.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer laid off several employees and held a captive audience meeting in response to a union organizing campaign.

The Board found that the employer became aware of the organizing activities and laid off four employees, including the key organizers, motivated at least in part by anti-union animus.

The Board also found that statements made by management at a captive audience meeting constituted unlawful threats and promises.

The Board ordered reinstatement and compensation for the affected employees, a posting and mailing of a notice, and union access to the workplace.

The Board further found that the union had sufficient membership support to be certified without a representation vote.

The applicant trade union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that three printing companies should be treated as a single employer.

The original company, Hunter Printing, experienced financial difficulties and eventually ceased operations, laying off its employees.

The owner subsequently commenced operations through two new corporate entities, utilizing the same equipment and performing similar work.

The Board found that the companies carried on associated or related businesses under common control and direction.

The Board exercised its discretion to make a single employer declaration, ensuring the union's bargaining rights continued with respect to the new entities, despite there currently being no employees in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent the respondent's part-time employees.

The respondent employer alleged that the union's membership evidence was tainted because rank-and-file employees assisting in the organizing campaign misrepresented the union's two-tiered initiation fee structure, telling employees it would cost $1 to join now but $20 later.

The Board found that the union's fee structure itself was acceptable and that the misstatements were made by rank-and-file employees, not full-time union organizers.

The Board concluded that the misrepresentations did not warrant discounting the membership cards or ordering a representation vote.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

One Board member dissented, arguing a vote should be ordered due to the misrepresentations.

The union filed a complaint alleging the university violated the duty to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to negotiate the union's 9-point programme regarding the divestment of the Royal Conservatory of Music, refusing to disclose related information, and refusing to continue negotiations pending the outcome of the complaint.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the university's refusal to discuss the 9-point programme and its refusal to continue negotiations pending the complaint violated the duty to bargain in good faith.

However, the Board found no violation regarding the refusal to disclose information or alleged delay.

The Board directed the university to bargain in good faith and table a full package of proposals.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the improper discharge of an employee during an organizing campaign.

The employer claimed the employee was laid off due to a shortage of work and lack of qualifications.

The Board found that the employer's actions, including the discharge, involvement in an anti-union petition, and holding a captive audience meeting, violated sections 64, 66, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

Concluding that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained in a representation vote due to the chilling effect of the employer's conduct, the Board certified the union pursuant to section 8 of the Act and ordered the reinstatement of the discharged employee with compensation.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The employer and objectors raised several issues regarding the membership evidence, including the voluntariness of counter-petitions, the status of an employee who quit before the terminal date, and a non-pay allegation involving a loaned initiation fee not disclosed on the Form 9 Declaration.

The Board found the counter-petitions voluntary, held that the quit employee's card remained valid, and determined the loan was a bona fide transaction that did not invalidate the membership evidence.

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

The complainant filed a reprisal complaint under the Environmental Protection Act, alleging he was discharged for refusing to perform work he believed was illegal.

At the hearing, the complainant requested an adjournment pending the outcome of parallel court proceedings and due to fears of police harassment.

The Board denied the adjournment, noting its mandate to deal with labour relations matters expeditiously.

The complainant subsequently requested to withdraw his complaint, which the Board permitted, terminating the inquiry.

The applicants, registered nurses at a nursing home, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union had been certified and a conciliation officer was appointed, but no collective agreement had been reached.

The Board held that under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, once a conciliation officer is appointed, an application for termination cannot be brought until after the interest arbitration process results in a collective agreement, and then only during the open period.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of drivers.

The Board previously found that ten examined drivers were dependent contractors.

The respondent employer sought to examine the remaining sixteen drivers and to recall a witness to adduce further evidence.

The Board held that further examinations could not be used to split the respondent's case, repair deficiencies, or relitigate matters already determined.

The Board directed the respondent to submit the specific facts it intended to prove for the remaining drivers, limited to facts differing from those of the ten drivers already examined, before deciding whether to permit further examinations.