Stewart Cooke

In an application for certification where two competing unions both submitted membership evidence in excess of 55 per cent, the Board reconsidered its initial decision to include a 'no union' option on the representation vote ballot.

The Board concluded that because either union would normally be entitled to outright certification based on their membership support, the true question was which union the employees wanted, not whether they wanted a union at all.

The Board amended its decision to eliminate the 'no union' option, directing that the ballot only offer a choice between the two competing unions.

The intervener employer requested the Board to reconsider its decision dismissing an application for termination of bargaining rights as untimely.

The employer argued that a conciliation officer had not been appointed under section 16 of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively, that the appointment was voided by the Inflation Restraint Act.

The Board found no grounds to alter its original conclusions, noting that the appointment of the conciliation officer was valid and not frustrated by the enactment of Bill 179.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The complainant union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that employees were laid off or discharged for union activity.

The respondent employer argued that it should not be required to proceed first with its evidence, asserting that the reverse onus provision in section 89(5) of the Labour Relations Act violates the presumption of innocence under section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Board rejected this argument, reaffirming its previous jurisprudence that section 89 is remedial and civil in nature, not penal or quasi-criminal.

The Board directed the respondent to proceed first with its evidence in accordance with normal practice.

The applicant union filed an application for certification without requesting a pre-hearing vote.

The intervener union subsequently filed an application by way of intervention and requested a pre-hearing vote.

The applicant objected to the intervener's membership evidence, arguing it should be assessed as of the applicant's application date rather than the terminal date.

The Board held that when a subsequent application requesting a pre-hearing vote is heard together with a regular application, both are treated as regular applications.

The Board assessed membership evidence as of the terminal date, found both unions had sufficient support, and ordered a representation vote.

The applicant sought a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the respondent union representing clerical employees at a hospital.

The union and the hospital were negotiating a first collective agreement and a conciliation officer had been appointed.

The applicant argued that the passage of the Inflation Restraint Act, 1982, which extended compensation plans, effectively cancelled the conciliation officer's appointment, thereby making the termination application timely.

The Board held that for first collective agreements, the normal rights and obligations under the Labour Relations Act and the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act remain unaffected by the Inflation Restraint Act, except for the ceiling on compensation increases.

Therefore, the conciliation officer's appointment remained valid, and the application was dismissed as untimely.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union applied for certification to represent part-time paramedical employees at the Ottawa General Hospital.

The union proposed a bargaining unit of all part-time paramedical employees, while the hospital argued for a unit restricted to part-time medical laboratory technologists.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the hospital's proposed unit was appropriate, as it mirrored the existing collective bargaining structure for full-time employees, avoiding anomalies.

The Board certified the union as the exclusive bargaining agent for the part-time medical laboratory technologists.

The applicant alleged that the respondent trade union and its officials violated a prior Board order and the Labour Relations Act by supplying union members to a newly formed non-union contractor to perform struck work during a province-wide strike.

The Board found that while the new contractor was not a 'related employer' under section 1(4), the arrangement whereby union members continued to perform the struck work for a non-union employer violated section 146(2) of the Act.

The Board issued a cease and desist order and directed the union to inform its members that they could not perform the struck work.

The applicant employee applied for a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the respondent trade union.

The union argued that the employee petition supporting the application was not voluntary, citing the employer's past unfair labour practices and the recent layoff of employees.

The Board found that sufficient time had passed since the employer's prior misconduct to neutralize its effect, and there was no evidence of recent employer interference.

The Board concluded the petition was voluntary and directed a representation vote.