W. A. Correll

The applicant union applied for certification for a unit of ironworkers in the construction industry.

The responding party employer argued the application was untimely because the employees were already covered by a collective agreement with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM).

The Board found that the work performed on the application date was construction work within the jurisdiction of the Ironworkers, and that the IAM collective agreement did not cover this work.

As the IAM agreement was not a bar, and the applicant had the requisite membership support, the Board granted the application and issued the certificates.

The applicant union applied to combine two separate craft bargaining units (press/photomechanical and mail room) at the responding party's newspaper printing plant.

The employer opposed the combination, arguing that the Labour Relations Act does not permit the combination of craft units and that it would cause serious labour relations problems due to differing interests.

The Board held that section 6(3) of the Act does not bar the combination of craft units under section 7.

Finding that combination would facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining and reduce fragmentation without causing serious labour relations problems, the Board granted the application and ordered the units combined.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the application.

The Minister of Labour referred two questions to the Ontario Labour Relations Board: whether the Canadian Red Cross Society (Ontario Division) is a 'hospital' under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA), and whether its homemakers are 'hospital employees'.

The Board concluded that the Society's Homemaker Services Program and the Brant County Home Care Program do not meet the statutory definition of a 'hospital'.

The Board emphasized that homemaking services are provided in patients' homes rather than in a residential institution, are not primarily medical in nature, and are not statutorily required.

Consequently, the homemakers are not hospital employees and retain the right to strike under the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant union sought certification for three groups of employees, submitting authorization cards as evidence of employee support.

The employer argued the cards merely expressed a desire for representation and did not constitute 'membership' or an 'application for membership' as required by the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed the statutory history, including the impact of Bill 40, and concluded that the legislative changes did not alter the fundamental requirement for actual membership or an application for membership.

Finding that the authorization cards did not meet this standard, and refusing to admit oral evidence to cure the documentary defect, the Board dismissed the certification applications.

The employer applied to combine the 'parts' and 'manufacturing' bargaining units following a corporate reorganization.

The parties agreed on a single collective agreement but could not resolve how to merge the seniority lists.

The employer proposed 'dovetailing' based on date of hire, while the union advanced conflicting positions from the two former units.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board exercised its discretion under subsection 7(5) of the Labour Relations Act to resolve the impasse, adopting the employer's dovetailing proposal as the most equitable resolution that respects the employees' accumulated seniority.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit restricted to Adult Basic Education and Adult English as a Second Language (ABESL) instructors employed by the responding party.

The responding party argued the appropriate unit should include all Continuing Education Instructors.

The Board applied the Hospital for Sick Children test and concluded that a bargaining unit restricted to ABESL instructors was not appropriate due to concerns about undue fragmentation and classification-based bargaining.

The Board found that a unit including all continuing education instructors would be appropriate and directed the parties to meet with a Labour Relations Officer to complete the certification report.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of objecting employees alleged that union organizers used intimidation, coercion, and material misrepresentations to collect membership cards.

The Board heard evidence from several objecting employees but found no substance to the allegations.

The Board concluded that the employees were not coerced or intimidated, and that any statements made by organizers were either salesmanship or did not overcome the employees' free will.

Finding no taint in the membership evidence, the Board certified the union without a representation vote.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the employer's manufacturing plant.

The employer argued that the appropriate unit should include employees at both its plant and its distribution yard, located 1.8 kilometres away, asserting that a plant-only unit would cause serious labour relations problems due to employee interchange and operational interdependence.

The Board found that the level of employee interchange was not significant or regular enough to cause serious labour relations problems if restricted.

The Board determined that the plant-only unit was appropriate and, finding that more than 55 percent of the employees in the unit were members of the union, ordered that a certificate issue.

The union alleged that the employer violated the statutory freeze under the Labour Relations Act by failing to recall a laid-off employee before hiring summer students.

The union also alleged the employer unlawfully used replacement workers during a strike.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the statutory freeze complaint, finding the employer's hiring of students was consistent with its past practice.

The Board also held that the laid-off employee, who had no contractual recall rights, lacked a sufficient connection to the workplace to participate in the strike vote.

Consequently, the union failed to achieve the 60% support required to trigger the statutory prohibition on replacement workers, and that application was also dismissed.

The applicant employer sought to combine the parts and manufacturing bargaining units and requested that their seniority lists be dovetailed.

The responding trade union agreed to the combination but argued for end-tailing the parts unit.

The Board previously directed the combination and ordered the parties to attempt a negotiated resolution of the seniority issue.

As the parties were unable to resolve the matter, the Board scheduled a hearing to adjudicate the outstanding remedial issues under section 7(5) of the Labour Relations Act and directed the parties to file further pleadings.

The union applied for certification and filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the employer discharged a union supporter and engaged in a pervasive campaign of interference during an organizing drive.

The Board found that the discharge was motivated by a bona fide belief of theft, not anti-union animus, and that the employer's frequent written communications fell within the bounds of free speech.

However, the Board held that the employer breached the Act by prohibiting union solicitation on company property during an employee's vacation, promising to clear discipline records, removing last names from schedules, and granting an unprecedented Christmas bonus as an inducement.

The Board concluded these violations were not so serious as to prevent the ascertainment of employees' true wishes under section 8.

The employer applied to combine two bargaining units represented by two separate local unions affiliated with the same international union.

The responding unions requested that the application be dismissed without a hearing because section 7(1) of the Labour Relations Act requires the employees to be represented by the same trade union.

The Board found that the two local unions were separate entities and dismissed the application without a hearing.

The employer filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the union breached its duty to bargain in good faith by submitting new and previously withdrawn items to a first contract arbitration board.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that interest arbitration is a substitute for bargaining and the statute does not restrict arbitration submissions to items previously negotiated.

The Board also declined to exercise its discretion to inquire into the complaint, noting the arbitration board had already assumed jurisdiction and ruled on the disputed items.

The applicant employer sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to stay a 'bottom line' certification decision pending the issuance of detailed written reasons and the disposition of an application for reconsideration.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the harm to the union and the employees caused by further delay in the certification process significantly outweighed any potential harm to the employer.

The Board emphasized that expedition is critical in labour relations and that staying a decision to allow a party to assess its position for judicial review would undermine the purpose of issuing bottom line decisions.

The applicant union sought a determination under section 73.2(12) of the Labour Relations Act regarding the employer's use of specified replacement workers during a strike at its brewery.

The employer argued that replacement workers were necessary to operate the power plant to prevent danger to life, health, or safety, and to prevent serious deterioration of equipment.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while an engineer was required to monitor the plant even if production ceased, the employer already had two managerial employees capable of safely operating the plant.

The Board concluded that the employer failed to establish that additional specified replacement workers were necessary within the meaning of section 73.2(3).

The application was granted and the employer was prohibited from using the specified replacement workers.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties initially agreed on the bargaining unit description and waived a formal hearing, after which the count was released showing the union in a certifiable position.

An owner of the responding party subsequently requested a hearing, arguing the manager misunderstood the agreement and seeking to exclude part-time employees and students.

The Board held that parties generally cannot resile from an agreement after the count is released.

Regardless, the Board found the union's proposed unit including both full-time and part-time employees was deemed appropriate under section 6(2.1) of the Labour Relations Act.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant employees applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding union.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the employee petitions filed in support were not voluntary.

The Board concluded that the active involvement of lead hands—who were perceived by employees as linked to management—in originating and circulating the petitions during working hours would likely lead employees to believe the petitions were supported or condoned by management.

A subsequent request for reconsideration was also dismissed, as it raised no new issues or evidence that could not have been presented at the initial hearing.

The applicant union sought certification for employees at a single gas bar location in Thunder Bay.

The responding party employer argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should encompass both of its gas bar locations in the municipality to avoid fragmentation.

The Board found that the single location was a viable grouping for collective bargaining and that requiring a multi-location unit might seriously impede access to collective bargaining in an industry that has not traditionally been organized.

A representation vote was ordered for the single-location unit.

One Board Member dissented, arguing that splitting the organization into two groups would cause serious labour relations difficulties.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied for certification to represent Case Managers employed by the Hamilton Program for Schizophrenia Inc. The parties agreed on all matters except the bargaining unit description.

The applicant sought a unit limited to Case Managers who are Registered and Graduate Nurses, while the responding party argued for a unit of all Case Managers.

The Board found that the applicant's proposed unit would cause serious labour relations problems due to fragmentation, applying the test from Hospital for Sick Children.

The Board determined that a unit of all Case Managers was appropriate and, as more than 55% of the employees in that unit had applied for membership, issued a certificate to the applicant.

The union applied for certification of a group of unrepresented employees at the Salvation Army's Mental Health Services in Metropolitan Toronto, and sought to combine this new unit with an existing unit it already represented.

The employer argued for four separate bargaining units based on location and function.

Applying the Hospital for Sick Children test, the Board found the union's proposed comprehensive unit appropriate, noting it avoided the labour relations problems associated with fragmentation.

Following certification, the Board ordered the combination of the new and existing bargaining units on the agreement of the parties.