W. A. Correll

The union sought to withdraw its certification application and related unfair labour practice complaint.

The respondent employer and objecting employees opposed the withdrawal, arguing the certification application should be dismissed with a bar on future applications under s. 105(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act, and the complaint dismissed with prejudice.

The Board allowed the union to withdraw the complaint without prejudice and dismissed the certification application without imposing a bar, finding no circumstances warranting a departure from its usual practice of not imposing a bar absent a representation vote or a series of unsuccessful applications.

The applicant trade union applied for a direction to arbitrate a first collective agreement.

The parties had reached an impasse in negotiations, primarily over the union's proposal for a union shop provision and the employer's proposal allowing foremen to perform bargaining unit work.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's uncompromising positions on these issues were taken without reasonable justification and reflected an underlying refusal to recognize the union's bargaining authority.

The Board directed the arbitration of the first collective agreement.

The respondent hospital requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision that found a bargaining unit comprised only of registered or graduate nursing assistants to be appropriate.

The respondent argued the Board placed undue emphasis on facilitating access to collective bargaining and should hear from other stakeholders.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no new evidence or arguments that could not have been raised previously, and noting that the respondent had full opportunity to address the issue during the original hearing.

A dissenting Board member would have granted the reconsideration request given the significant policy implications for the hospital sector.

In a consolidated application for certification and unfair labour practice complaint, the central issue was identifying the true employer of the subject construction workers.

Following initial hearings where document production was incomplete, the union requested an order for the production of time and payroll records from the respondents.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, directing the parties to identify, list, and file all relevant documents prior to the recommencement of hearings to avoid further prejudicial delays.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the respondents constituted one employer and were bound by certain collective agreements.

The Board found that the initial voluntary recognition agreement was valid and not the result of improper employer support.

Applying the criteria for a related employer declaration, the Board concluded that the entities were under common control and direction and engaged in related business activities in the electrical contracting industry.

The Board granted the section 1(4) declaration, binding the respondents to the Electricians Provincial Agreement and the high-rise residential appendix, but declined to bind them to the low-rise residential agreement as the union lacked bargaining rights for that work.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit comprised solely of registered and graduate nursing assistants at the respondent hospital.

The hospital argued that the appropriate unit should be a broader service unit, consistent with historical Ontario Labour Relations Board practice.

The Board reviewed the history of bargaining unit configurations in the hospital sector and the evolving professionalization of nursing assistants.

Balancing the community of interest, the aversion to undue fragmentation, and the employees' right to self-organization, the majority found that the proposed unit of registered and graduate nursing assistants was appropriate.

A dissenting member argued that the decision departed from established precedent and risked undue fragmentation.

The union grieved the discharge of an employee who was terminated after failing to report for work and failing to notify the employer of his absence.

The employer relied on this failure as a culminating incident, pointing to the employee's prior disciplinary record, which included warnings and suspensions for attendance issues, insubordination, and driving a company vehicle with a suspended license.

The Board found that the failure to notify warranted some discipline and constituted a culminating incident.

However, considering the employee's length of service and the fact that he was not previously on the verge of termination, the Board concluded that discharge was excessive.

The Board substituted a 10-day suspension and ordered the employee reinstated with compensation.

The union applied for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The union argued that the employer failed to make reasonable or expeditious efforts to conclude an agreement and adopted uncompromising bargaining positions without reasonable justification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's bargaining approach, which included a massive volume of proposals, concessionary demands, and a confusing format, amounted to 'busy work' bargaining that hindered progress.

Furthermore, the employer's final offer was uncompromising and its financial justification was incomplete and unpersuasive.

The Board directed the settlement of the first contract by arbitration.

A partial dissent was filed regarding a preliminary ruling on the late filing of the employer's reply.

The applicant employee association applied for certification and was required to establish its status as a trade union under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the steps taken to form the association, including adopting a constitution, electing officers, and setting dues, were sufficient to establish it as a trade union.

Although membership cards were signed before the constitution was officially adopted, the Board held that subsequent acts consistent with membership, such as ratifying the constitution at a general meeting, validated the membership evidence.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The complainant alleged that his employment was terminated in reprisal for raising health and safety concerns, contrary to section 24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The complainant sought an adjournment to compel a Ministry of Labour inspector to testify, which the Board denied due to statutory compellability restrictions and lack of notice.

On the merits, the Board found that the complainant's discharge was the result of an ongoing clash of management styles and his refusal to follow the employer's directions, rather than any health and safety work refusal or request for a Ministry inspection.

The complaint was dismissed.

The intervener union, Local 272, requested that the Board not give effect to the results of a representation vote in which the applicant Association was successful.

Local 272 alleged that the employer provided improper support to the Association by settling an unfair labour practice complaint on the day of the vote, or alternatively, that the Association improperly exploited the perception of such support in its election campaign literature.

The Board found no evidence of improper employer support or collusion.

Furthermore, the Board concluded that the Association's campaign leaflet was not false or misleading and did not impair the critical faculties of a reasonable voter.

The request to set aside the vote was dismissed.

Counsel for two of the respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date due to a scheduling conflict with another matter before the Board.

The Board noted that the hearing dates had been agreed upon by the parties and that counsel had accepted the retainer in the other matter knowing of the conflict.

The applicant union refused to consent to the adjournment.

The Board dismissed the adjournment request, finding that the scheduling conflict was of counsel's own making and did not justify an adjournment.

The union applied for a declaration that a sale of a business occurred when a unionized laundry business and a non-unionized laundry business were both sold to a newly incorporated company, which then integrated the operations and employees.

The Board found that a sale of a business had occurred.

The central issue was whether there was an 'intermingling' of employees under subsection 63(6) of the Labour Relations Act, given that the purchaser was a newly created entity with no pre-existing business.

The Board held that the purchaser carried on the businesses of both predecessor companies and intermingled their employees, satisfying the requirements of subsection 63(6).

Consequently, the Board ordered a representation vote to determine if the employees wished to be represented by the union.

The union applied under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The employer, bound by a pre-existing multi-party agreement providing employment guarantees for native workers, refused to negotiate terms for native employees that might conflict with that agreement.

The Board found that the employer's rigid adherence to the third-party agreement and refusal to recognize the union's comprehensive bargaining authority over all employees in the unit constituted a refusal to recognize the union.

Given the complex third-party interests impeding bilateral negotiations, the Board directed the settlement of the first collective agreement by arbitration.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether a Public Relations Secretary was an 'employee'.

The Board reviewed the Labour Relations Officer's report and the parties' written submissions.

The Board found that the individual was employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations, as she was privy to significant information regarding grievances and collective bargaining.

Consequently, the Board declared she was not an 'employee' within the meaning of the Act.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The Board found that not less than 35% of the employees in the voting constituency were members of the applicant.

The intervener union challenged the collection of membership evidence, alleging irregularities in the mail-in process and the Form 9 declaration.

The Board directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be taken but ordered the ballot box sealed pending further submissions or a hearing regarding the intervener's allegations.

The parties requested the Ontario Labour Relations Board to arbitrate the settlement of their first collective agreement under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

As a preliminary matter, the Board ruled that the parties' conduct during negotiations is irrelevant to determining the contents of the arbitrated agreement.

On the merits, the Board determined the appropriate terms for hours of work, pension contributions, and wage rates by comparing other collective agreements in the industry and geographic area, while accounting for the employer's specific operational context and the pre-existing collective agreement with a displaced union.

The Board ordered the inclusion of the arbitrated terms and made the wage increases retroactive.

The complainant, who was performing sandblasting work, refused to continue working without proper safety equipment after sand got into his eyes.

The employer discharged him for this refusal.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer breached section 24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by discharging the complainant for acting in compliance with the Act.

The employer, who did not appear at the hearing, was ordered to pay $2,100 in compensation for lost wages.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to bargain in good faith.

Despite the union serving notice to bargain and sending four separate written invitations over four months to arrange negotiating meetings, the employer consistently refused to meet.

The employer insisted that the union first reply to a prior letter requesting particulars on how to join the union.

The Board found this to be a fundamental and blatant violation of the duty to bargain in good faith, noting that the union's failure to provide such information did not relieve the employer of its statutory obligations.

The Board declared that the employer failed to bargain in good faith and directed it to meet with the union forthwith.

The applicant employer applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether a Network/Communications Co-ordinator is an 'employee' for the purposes of the Act, arguing the position involves access to confidential labour relations files.

The respondent union opposed the exclusion.

The Board authorized a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into and report on the duties and responsibilities of the position.