T. G. Armstrong

The complainant union alleged that the employer, Coulter Copper & Brass Limited, and its interim receiver violated section 14 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to sign a formal collective agreement.

The parties had previously signed a Memorandum of Settlement which was subsequently ratified by the union.

Shortly after ratification, the employer went into receivership, and the interim receiver instructed the employer not to sign the formal agreement to avoid creating a fraudulent preference.

The Board found that a collective agreement came into existence upon the union's communication of ratification.

The Board held that the refusal to execute the formal document reflecting the agreed terms constituted a breach of the duty to bargain in good faith, and ordered the respondents to sign the agreement.

During a hearing for an unfair labour practice complaint, the complainant union subpoenaed a journalist who had written an article about the respondent employer's alleged threat to cancel its animal control contract.

The journalist refused to reveal his sources for the article.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that the identity of the sources was relevant and admissible, and that no journalistic privilege exists in Ontario to protect a reporter's sources.

When the journalist continued to refuse to answer the question, the Board consented to state a case to the Divisional Court for contempt proceedings.

The complainant trade union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the respondent employer violated section 14 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to bargain in good faith.

The parties had previously signed a memorandum of settlement, but the employer refused to execute the formal collective agreement, arguing it had not been properly ratified by all employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board found that the recent legislative amendment requiring all employees to participate in a ratification vote was not in effect at the time of the union's ratification.

The Board declared the employer violated section 14, directed it to execute the collective agreement, and ordered damages.

The applicant union applied for certification and filed sufficient membership evidence for automatic certification.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing the union.

The Board found that the petition lacked evidence of custody during a period of its circulation and was signed by a foreman.

Consequently, the Board gave no weight to the petition, declined to order a representation vote, and granted the certification.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent hotel.

The respondent challenged the applicant's trade union status due to a recent merger of two locals, and argued against the exclusion of part-time employees and students from the bargaining unit.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and maintained its standard practice of excluding part-time employees and students.

However, because many membership cards bore the name of a predecessor local rather than the newly merged applicant, the Board found an element of doubt regarding the employees' intentions and ordered a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, arguing that the cards were valid and automatic certification should have been granted.

The applicant union applied for a declaration under section 1(4) and section 55 of the Labour Relations Act that Devon Studio and Walkerville Printing Company Limited were related employers and bound by a collective agreement.

The Board found that the two entities were under common control and direction and constituted a single employer.

The Board further held that a memorandum of agreement signed by the employer effectively bound it to a joint collective agreement negotiated subsequently.

The Board declared the entities to be a single employer bound by the collective agreement, with retroactive compensation owed to employees.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed a statement of desire (petition) opposing the application.

The Board assessed whether the petition was a voluntary expression of the employees' views, given the overlap between those who signed union cards and the petition.

The Board found that the petition was circulated openly on company premises during working hours, with a chain of communication that could have attracted management's attention.

Rumours of a plant shutdown and the involvement of an employee closely related to management further tainted the atmosphere.

The Board concluded the petition was not a voluntary expression of desire, declined to order a representation vote, and granted the certificate based on the union's membership evidence.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of the respondent at clinics in Hamilton, Burlington, and London.

The Board found the applicant established its status as a trade union, dismissing objections regarding the sequence of its founding meeting and undated membership cards.

The Board rejected the applicant's request for a single combined bargaining unit covering all three municipalities, finding insufficient community of interest and no interchange of employees, and instead determined that three separate units were appropriate.

The Board granted a certificate for the Burlington unit and an interim certificate for the Hamilton unit pending the resolution of a disputed managerial exclusion, while appointing a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into disputed classifications at the London clinic.