W. A. Correll

The union applied for interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the employer changed the work schedules of fragrance associates as a reprisal for their participation in a grievance arbitration.

The union sought an order restoring the previous work schedule and an order requiring the employer to post a notice of employee rights.

The Board dismissed the request to restore the work schedule, finding that the harm to the employees was primarily financial and could be remedied if the main complaint succeeded, whereas an interim order would significantly intrude on the employer's management rights and the collective agreement.

However, the Board granted the request for a posting, directing the employer to post a notice advising employees of their rights under the Act to prevent potential labour relations harm without prejudicing the employer.

The applicant union sought an interim order under section 92.1(1) of the Labour Relations Act to prohibit the employer and the union from engaging in economic sanctions, including strikes and lock-outs, pending the disposition of an application under section 7 to combine two bargaining units.

The parties were in a legal strike/lock-out position for the "outside unit", while the "office unit" had already ratified a tentative agreement.

The Board dismissed the request for an interim order, finding that the actions sought to be prohibited were lawful under the Act.

The Board concluded that the potential harm of not granting the order was outweighed by the unusual and intrusive effect such an order would have on the established collective bargaining process.

The union applied for certification and alleged unfair labour practices by the employer, a university students' association.

The employer terminated two employees who were key union organizers and engaged in a pattern of harassment and intimidation during the organizing campaign.

The Board found that the employer violated sections 65, 67, and 71 of the Labour Relations Act.

Concluding that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained due to the employer's contraventions, the Board exercised its discretion under section 9.2 of the Act to certify the union without a vote.

The union filed a construction industry grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by laying off senior employees while retaining two less senior employees who had recently returned from compensable injuries.

The employer argued it was required to retain the injured workers under the re-employment obligations of the Workers' Compensation Act.

The Board held that section 54(15) of the Workers' Compensation Act explicitly provides that the statutory re-employment obligations do not displace the seniority provisions of a collective agreement.

The Board declared that the employer breached the collective agreement by retaining the less senior employees.

The applicant union filed applications for certification for newspaper delivery drivers engaged by the responding party.

The central issue was whether the drivers were dependent contractors (and thus employees under the Labour Relations Act) or independent contractors.

The Board applied the eleven-factor test from Algonquin Tavern, considering the context of the newspaper industry.

The Board found that the drivers had significant independence, including the ability to use substitutes, control their own expenses, and work other jobs.

The Board concluded that the drivers were independent contractors and dismissed the applications for certification.

Following the certification of the applicant union, the respondent employer requested an investigation into allegations that five employees did not sign the union membership cards submitted on their behalf.

The Board conducted a confidential investigation and informed the employer that there was no basis to proceed further.

The employer subsequently requested reasons for this decision.

The Board provided written reasons explaining its rigorous, confidential procedures for verifying membership evidence and investigating non-sign allegations, emphasizing that section 113(1) of the Labour Relations Act prohibits the disclosure of employee wishes regarding union representation unless a prima facie case of fraud is established.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees currently represented by the intervenor union.

A pre-hearing representation vote was held, but due to a snowstorm, the Board Officer arrived late and the polling times were changed by agreement of the parties.

The applicant won the vote.

The intervenor subsequently objected, arguing that the changed times disenfranchised certain drivers and requesting a new vote.

The Board dismissed the objection, noting that the intervenor had signed consent and waiver forms after the vote and failed to establish that any agreement for a re-vote had been made.

The Board upheld the vote results and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The United Steelworkers of America applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of Hemlo Gold Mines Inc. A group of employees intervened, seeking to file petitions opposing the union after the application filing date.

The intervenors argued that the Board's rules regarding the certification application date and notice to employees violated the rules of natural justice and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Board dismissed the intervenors' motions, finding that the Labour Relations Act clearly established the application filing date as the certification application date, and that the statutory provisions did not violate the Charter.

The Board also dismissed a motion alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Finding that over 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit had applied to become members of the union on or before the certification application date, the Board certified the union without a representation vote.

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the employer laid off and terminated several employees due to their involvement in a union organizing campaign.

The employer claimed the layoffs were strictly due to economic difficulties and lack of work.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's actions were motivated, at least in part, by anti-union animus.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the affected employees with compensation for lost wages and directed the employer to mail a notice of the decision to all bargaining unit employees.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging that the employer, Grant Development Corporation, laid off all employees known or believed to be union supporters upon learning of the certification application.

Grant argued that the Band was the true employer and that the layoffs were due to a lack of work and a commercial dispute.

The Board found that Grant was the true employer, as it exercised fundamental control over the workers.

The Board further found that the mass layoff was motivated by anti-union animus, violating the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the aggrieved employees with compensation and granted the union certification under both section 7(2) and section 8 of the Act.

The applicant union applied for certification after the incumbent union (CPU) had its bargaining rights terminated following a representation vote.

The CPU sought to intervene in the certification application, arguing it retained status based on a constitutional provision extending membership for three months post-termination.

The Board dismissed the intervention, holding that a constitutional provision alone does not constitute sufficient representational authorization to intervene, especially where employees had overwhelmingly voted to terminate the CPU's bargaining rights and no individual employee authorized the intervention.

The applicant union filed applications for certification to represent taxi drivers operating under the banners of various taxicab brokers in Metropolitan Toronto.

The central issue was whether the drivers were 'dependent contractors' under section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, or independent contractors.

The Board examined the economic relationship between the drivers and the brokers, noting that the drivers derived a substantial portion of their income from dispatched fares and corporate account chits provided by the brokers.

The Board also found that the brokers exercised significant control over the drivers through rules, policies, and the threat of suspension from the dispatch system.

The Board concluded that the drivers were in a position of economic dependence and under an obligation to perform duties for the brokers, more closely resembling the relationship of an employee than that of an independent contractor.

The drivers were therefore found to be dependent contractors.

The applicant trade union sought a declaration that the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and the Pinecrest-Queensway Health and Community Services constituted a single employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively, that there had been a sale of a business under section 64.

The union argued that the Region's funding, provision of personnel, and historical support demonstrated common control or a transfer of social service delivery.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the P-Q Centre operated autonomously under its own Board of Directors and that the Region acted merely as a supportive funder and participating agency, without exercising control or transferring its statutory responsibilities.

The complainant employer filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of nursing duties to members of CUPE rather than ONA.

ONA brought a motion requesting the Board defer consideration of the complaint pending the disposition of its grievances at arbitration.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the dispute transcended the collective agreement issues raised in the grievances and had a substantial jurisdictional element.

The Board concluded it was the appropriate forum to resolve the work assignment dispute under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated the statutory freeze provisions under section 81(1) of the Labour Relations Act by unilaterally changing its policy regarding sales commissions on returns and account corrections.

The employer argued that the change was part of its normal business practice and within its management rights.

The Board applied the 'reasonable expectations' test and found that the complete elimination of commissions in these circumstances, contrary to a policy that had been in place for at least five years, was not within the reasonable expectations of the employees.

The Board declared that the employer violated the Act and ordered compensation for affected bargaining unit members.

The applicant union filed an application for certification to displace the incumbent union.

During the application process, the employer and the incumbent union negotiated and signed a renewal collective agreement.

The applicant argued that this violated the statutory freeze under section 81(2) of the Labour Relations Act and constituted unlawful employer support under section 49.

The Board held that the statutory freeze does not suspend the duty to bargain between an employer and an incumbent union.

The negotiation and conclusion of a renewal agreement do not, in and of themselves, violate the freeze or constitute unlawful employer support.

The application for certification was dismissed as untimely.

The applicants, both working foremen, applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights for two separate bargaining units (sheet metal workers and roofers) of the employer.

The Board found that the petition circulated by the applicant in the sheet metal unit was not voluntary, as his duties and involvement in seeking concessions would lead employees to reasonably perceive him as acting on behalf of management.

That application was dismissed.

However, the Board found the petition in the roofers' unit to be voluntary, as the applicant circulating it did not have similar duties or involvement.

The Board directed a representation vote for the roofers' unit.

The applicant employer applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the union failed to give notice to bargain within sixty days following certification.

The union explained the delay was due to staffing difficulties at its regional office and that notice was served shortly after the application was filed.

The Board dismissed the application, finding the delay was not lengthy, resulted from inadvertence rather than an intention to sleep on rights, and did not cause prejudice to the employer.

The applicant union sought a declaration under subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that R.R. Projects Inc. and Golden Arm Flooring Inc. be treated as one employer.

The Board found that the two companies carried on related activities in the resilient flooring contracting business under common control or direction, noting their interrelationship of operations, common management, and financial control.

The Board granted the declaration to protect the union's bargaining rights and directed Golden Arm Flooring Inc. to pay unsatisfied damages previously awarded against R.R. Projects Inc.

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.