Susan Tacon

The Teamsters and individual complainants alleged that Steinberg breached the duty to bargain in good faith by negotiating a collective agreement with final offer selection and labour peace provisions, and subsequently selling its Ontario retail operations to A & P. They also alleged that the transaction constituted a sale of the distribution business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, and that the structure of the deal and A & P's subsequent hiring practices were motivated by anti-union animus.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed all applications and complaints, finding no breach of the duty to bargain in good faith, no sale of the distribution business, and no anti-union animus in the transaction's structure or A & P's hiring practices.

The Board issued reasons for its earlier decision to revoke the early termination of a collective agreement between Ledcor and CLAC.

Local 183, which had filed a certification application during what would have been the open period, sought reconsideration of the early termination.

The Board found that Local 183 had standing to bring the reconsideration application because its interests were directly affected.

On the merits, the Board held that the employer's posting of the notice of the early termination application at its office and yard, rather than at the actual job sites where employees worked, was inadequate.

Consequently, the Board revoked its decision granting early termination.

The parties subsequently settled the remaining matters, including the certification application, which was dismissed after a representation vote.

The complainant, a union member, alleged that the union breached its duty of fair referral under section 70 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to issue him a referral slip for a name-hire request.

The refusal followed a history of animosity between the complainant and the union executive, including internal union charges and a substantial fine levied against the complainant.

The Board found that the union's proffered reasons for refusing the referral slip were not credible and that the refusal was motivated by hostility and ill-will.

The Board concluded that the union's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory, and in bad faith, and directed the union to compensate the complainant for his losses.

The applicant union alleged that the responding school board violated the statutory freeze provision under section 81 of the Labour Relations Act by altering the wages and benefits of occasional teachers following certification.

The school board argued that the teachers in question were probationary, not occasional, and thus not covered by the freeze.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the teachers were occasional teachers within the meaning of the Education Act and the collective agreement.

The Board declared that the school board violated the statutory freeze by altering their terms and conditions of employment and ordered full compensation.

The respondent Steinberg Inc. obtained an ex parte order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) from the Quebec Superior Court staying all proceedings against it.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board considered whether this stay order applied to ongoing unfair labour practice and related employer proceedings before the Board.

The Board held that the broad language of the CCAA and the court order encompassed its adjudicative processes, notwithstanding the remedial nature of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board further held that the proceedings could not be severed to continue against the co-respondent A&P unless the applicants withdrew their complaints against Steinberg.

The applicant sought to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The Board found that the petition in support of the termination application was not voluntary.

The Board noted that a prior petition had been circulated with management's knowledge and involvement, and that the union had originally been certified under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act due to egregious employer unfair labour practices.

Given the lingering effects of the employer's conduct and the circumstances surrounding the petitions, the termination application was dismissed.

In an application for certification by Shopmen's Local 834, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dealt with several preliminary motions.

The Board denied the respondent's request for an adjournment to give notice to other parties, ruling the issue was raised too late.

The Board also denied a request to extend the terminal date due to an intervener application, maintaining its practice of using the original application's dates.

Finally, the Board refused to defer the certification applications pending the outcome of related grievance referrals.

A Board Officer was appointed to conduct a record check regarding the bargaining unit composition.

The applicant sought to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights in the ICI sector of the construction industry.

The union argued that the applicant and other individuals supporting the application were not 'employees' in the bargaining unit because they were not members in good standing and were not hired through the union's hiring hall, in violation of the collective agreement.

The Board applied the April Waterproofing principle, finding that because the union had actively asserted its rights under the collective agreement by filing a grievance prior to the termination application, the continued employment of these individuals contravened the agreement.

Consequently, they were not considered employees in the bargaining unit for the purpose of the application, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant union sought certification and won a representation vote.

Following the vote, four employees whose names were not on the agreed voters' list sought to have their segregated ballots counted.

The employer and objectors also alleged that a union membership card contained a forged signature and that the required $1 fee was not paid.

The Board held that the four segregated ballots would not be counted, as the parties had agreed to the voters' list and the employees had adequate notice to raise their concerns earlier.

Regarding the membership card, the Board permitted the union to adduce handwriting expert evidence, concluded the signature was genuine, and found the $1 fee was a bona fide loan from the collector.

The union was certified.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent general contractor violated the Provincial ICI Agreement by subcontracting electrical work to a non-union contractor.

The respondent argued it was not bound by the 1962 working agreement, asserting it was signed without authority, under duress, or was an invalid pre-hire agreement since the respondent never directly hired electricians.

The respondent alternatively argued the union had abandoned any bargaining rights.

The Board held the 1962 working agreement was validly executed, constituted a series of voluntary recognition agreements, and was not abandoned.

The grievance was upheld.

The applicants and complainants brought a motion seeking a direction from the Board that the respondent Steinberg produce a witness to testify regarding an allegation of a sale of business under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondents argued that the statutory duty under section 64(13) was satisfied because the co-respondent, A&P, had produced a witness.

The Board rejected this argument and directed Steinberg to adduce viva voce testimony of all facts within its knowledge material to the allegation.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed a petition in opposition.

The Board held an inquiry into a non-pay allegation regarding union membership evidence and the voluntariness of the petition.

The Board found the membership evidence reliable because the Form 9 declarant made thorough inquiries.

However, the Board found the petition was not voluntary because it was circulated during working hours at work stations, creating a reasonable perception that management would learn who refused to sign.

The Board certified the union.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union regarding its handling of his discharge grievance and arbitration.

The company and union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint due to undue delay, as it was filed 9.5 months after the arbitration hearing and years after the initial grievance steps.

The Board found the complainant lacked credibility and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

Given the prejudice inherent in the passage of time and the complainant's representation by counsel during the relevant period, the Board exercised its discretion under section 89(4) of the Labour Relations Act to decline to inquire into the merits and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant, a carpenter and health and safety representative, alleged he was laid off in reprisal for his safety activities, contrary to section 24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board found that the employer failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for selecting the complainant for layoff, noting his average or better work performance and the friction caused by his safety duties.

Concluding that the layoff was motivated at least in part by his health and safety role, the Board ordered his reinstatement with compensation.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer failed to pay a travel allowance required by the collective agreement.

The dispute centered on whether the 'employer's yard' for calculating the travel allowance referred to the local contractor's permanent yard (McFarland yard) or the respondent's temporary yard on the job site.

The Board upheld the grievance, finding that under the 'pick-up' agreement, the respondent was bound to the terms of the local McFarland Agreement, which required calculating the travel allowance from the McFarland yard to equalize competitive positions.