S. O'Flynn

The complainant, a millwright discharged after an altercation with management, alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation by refusing to take his discharge grievance to arbitration.

The union had negotiated a full total disability pension for the complainant, believing his grievance had little chance of success given the evidence against him and his prior disciplinary record.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union had fairly considered the merits of the grievance and acted in the complainant's best interest without arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.

The applicant union requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision and sought disclosure of the names and addresses of employees in the voting constituency prior to a mailed ballot vote.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request but granted the disclosure request.

Relying on the York Board of Education decision, the Board found that the wide dispersion of the voting constituency made the information necessary for the applicant to adequately communicate with employees during the campaign period.

The respondent was directed to provide the names and addresses forthwith.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer raised a non-pay allegation regarding one of the membership cards collected by an in-plant organizer.

The Board found that the one dollar payment for the card in question was a bona fide loan from the organizer to the employee, which was subsequently repaid.

Given that the organizer was inexperienced and the union official had conducted proper inquiries, the Board determined this was an isolated incident.

The Board exercised its discretion to count the remaining membership cards collected by the organizer, satisfying the requirement that more than fifty-five per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant.

A formal certificate was issued.

During a hearing for an unfair labour practice complaint, the complainant union requested an order directing the respondent employer to produce a salary survey and other documents related to unilateral salary adjustments.

The employer argued the survey was irrelevant and its production would grant the ultimate remedy sought in the complaint.

The Board held it had jurisdiction to order production of documents relevant to the issues, finding the survey's existence and content relevant to the employer's motivation.

The Board ordered production of the survey and documents the employer intended to rely on, noting that the union was bound by an implied undertaking not to use the documents for collateral purposes such as collective bargaining.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit but disputed whether sixteen employees laid off on the morning of the application date should be included in the count.

The employees had reported for work with a reasonable expectation of working but were given termination notices before their shift began.

Applying established Board jurisprudence, the Board held that the employees should be included in the count.

Finding that more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant, the Board issued a certificate.

The applicant sought certification as a bargaining agent.

As it had not previously been found to be a trade union, the Board held a hearing on this threshold issue.

The evidence showed that while the applicant had drafted and approved a constitution, it had failed to elect officers in accordance with that constitution, nor had it ratified the officers acclaimed prior to the constitution's adoption.

Applying the five-step test from Associated Hebrew Schools of Toronto, the Board found that the failure to have properly elected or authorized officers meant the applicant was not a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1)(p) of the Labour Relations Act.

The application for certification was dismissed.

In a grievance referral to arbitration, the applicant union requested the Board to direct the respondents' principal to comply with a summons to witness.

The respondents demanded particulars of the alleged violations before complying.

The Board held that the grievance against Penka Carpentry Limited was sufficiently particularized, as it alleged all work performed by Penka violated the collective agreement.

However, for Karl Thier Construction Limited, the union was required to particularize claims outside the specific time and location already identified, as it had a prior bargaining relationship with that entity.

The matter was adjourned.

The applicant union sought certification for a full-time bargaining unit.

The respondent employer argued that because several employees had received lay-off notices, their cards should be excluded from the membership count, and if support fell below 55%, a representation vote should be ordered.

The Board rejected this 'build-down' argument, finding that the lay-offs affected less than 20% of the workforce, which did not render the remaining complement unrepresentative.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to order a vote and certified the union.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.

On the terminal date, the respondent employer filed a list of eight employees.

Later, during the Labour Relations Officer's inquiry, the employer sought to add five additional names to the list, claiming that relevant documents had just been located.

The Board denied the request, finding that the employer had the documents in its possession at all material times and made no reservations when filing the original list.

Allowing the late amendment would render the terminal date requirements meaningless.

The Board proceeded to certify the applicant.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the statutory freeze period by denying work to bargaining unit employees and using managerial staff to perform their duties after an application for certification was filed.

The employer claimed a seasonal downturn in business but failed to produce documentary evidence to support this.

The Board drew an adverse inference against the employer and found a violation of the statutory freeze provisions.

The employer was ordered to compensate the affected employees for lost wages and benefits.

The complainant alleged a breach of a settlement agreement because the respondent paid a $1,750 settlement amount approximately one week late.

The respondent had offered to pay the four or five dollars in interest for the delay, but the complainant refused, demanding a Board order as a matter of principle.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act to decline to make an order, noting the delay was not excessive and the amount in issue was trivial.

The complaint was dismissed.