Timothy W. Sargeant

The union applied for certification.

Two preliminary issues arose regarding segregated ballots.

The Board held that the parties could not resile from their agreement to exclude one employee from the voters' list, so her ballot was not counted.

For another employee, the Board found the union could change its position within the objection period, leaving her status in dispute.

After hearing evidence, the Board determined the employee did not exercise managerial functions or act in a confidential capacity regarding labour relations under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, and ordered her ballot counted.

The applicant, a former waitress, appealed an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order to pay regarding alleged unauthorized wage deductions.

The employer had deducted $1.00 per hour from the applicant's wages to fund a tip pool for kitchen staff.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant never consented to this deduction in writing, as required by the Employment Standards Act.

The Board concluded the employer breached section 8 of the Act and ordered the employer to repay the deducted amount of $1078.50.

The union filed an application for certification but withdrew it after the employer invoked section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, asserting a significantly larger bargaining unit.

The union immediately filed a second application.

The employer requested that the Board impose a bar on future applications under section 7(9) as a condition of the withdrawal.

The Board declined to impose a bar, finding that the union withdrew the first application to avoid protracted litigation over the bargaining unit size, not to avoid a defeat at the polls or manipulate the vote timing.

The union applied for certification and the employer filed a notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, challenging the union's 40% support.

The ballot box from the representation vote was sealed.

The union sought reconsideration of a procedural ruling, arguing that newly discovered evidence showed 15 individuals were improperly on the voters list, and that removing them would give the union the appearance of 40% support.

The Board agreed, reconsidered its ruling, and ordered the ballots counted.

The Board also dismissed the employer's unfair labour practice complaint, finding that the union's campaign literature did not constitute intimidation or coercion.

The employer filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the union breached its duty to bargain in good faith by taking a demand for multi-unit/multi-province bargaining to impasse, and that the union failed to comply with statutory strike vote requirements by pooling ballots across multiple bargaining units.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that pursuing multi-unit bargaining to impasse is inconsistent with the scheme of the Act and constitutes a breach of section 17.

The Board further held that pooling strike vote ballots from different bargaining units violates section 79, rendering the resulting strike unlawful.

In the context of a school board amalgamation, the applicant union applied for a single 'all employee' non-teaching bargaining unit.

The responding employer and two other unions proposed two bargaining units: one for maintenance/service and one for office/clerical/teaching assistants.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that two bargaining units were appropriate, noting the history of a successful two-unit structure at one of the predecessor boards and the substantial size of each proposed unit.

The applicant union sought interim orders under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to prevent the responding employer from implementing its final offer or recalling employees pending the disposition of an unfair labour practice complaint.

The union alleged that the employer's pre-vote conduct, including threats of plant closure and offers of cash payments, tainted a section 42 final offer vote.

The Board found an arguable case but dismissed the application, concluding that the balance of harm favoured the employer, who was suffering significant financial losses, over the union.

The Board heard a preliminary issue regarding the order of proceedings for two competing applications: a first contract application filed by the union and a termination application filed by the employees.

The employer and the employees argued that the termination application should be heard first, citing new employee rights under Bill 7 and the fundamental nature of representational rights.

The union argued that the first contract application, which was filed first, should proceed first in accordance with the Board's normal practice.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 43(23) of the Labour Relations Act to hear the first contract application first, noting that if successful, it would suggest employer conduct may have influenced the employees' desire to decertify.

One Board member dissented, arguing the termination application should be heard first to respect employee wishes.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The responding party employer requested the application be dismissed without a hearing, arguing that a previous unsuccessful application by the international union within the past year barred this application under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Alternatively, the employer requested no vote be held until the threshold question was decided.

The Board declined to dismiss the application or delay the vote, directing that a representation vote take place and allowing the employer to raise the bar issue later.

A dissenting Board member would have ordered the ballot box sealed pending the determination of the bar issue.

The applicant unions brought applications under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act concerning the sale of an answering service business from Rogers Cantel Paging Inc. to AAS Telecommunications Services Limited.

Rogers raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the sale was from a federal undertaking.

The Board found that Rogers operated the answering and paging services as a fully integrated business, which constituted a federally regulated undertaking.

The Board concluded it has no jurisdiction under section 69 to consider a sale of part of a federally regulated operation to a provincially regulated company, and dismissed the applications.