W.F. Rutherford

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's wholesale division.

The parties disagreed on whether salesmen, fillers, part-time employees, and students should be included in the unit.

The Board found that the salesmen and fillers shared a community of interest with the warehouse and delivery employees, departing from its usual policy due to the specific operational integration.

The Board excluded students based on the employer's history of hiring them, but included part-time employees as there was no such history.

As the union demonstrated less than forty-five percent membership support in the determined unit, the application for certification was dismissed.

The union and an individual employee filed complaints alleging that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act by penalizing employees for their union organizing activities.

The employer laid off one key union organizer, reduced overtime for another, and terminated a third who had also refused to work on a machine that had previously caused him health issues.

The Board found that the employer's actions were motivated by anti-union animus and that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving otherwise.

The Board concluded that the employer contravened sections 64 and 66 of the Labour Relations Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The applicant union requested leave to withdraw its application for certification before a pre-hearing representation vote was directed.

The respondent hospital opposed the withdrawal and requested that the Board impose a bar on future applications under section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act, arguing the union was attempting to avoid an unfavourable vote.

The Board dismissed the application but declined to impose a bar or issue a warning, noting that a vote had not yet been directed and it would be inappropriate to adjudicate the likelihood of a vote merely to determine the burden of proof for a hypothetical future application.

The complainants alleged that the respondent union and its business manager contravened section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by acting arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith in the administration of the union's hiring hall.

The Board found that the union's hiring hall records were unreliable and that the business manager had used his control over the hiring hall to penalize political rivals by denying them job opportunities.

The Board concluded that the union contravened section 69 in respect of 23 referrals challenged by one complainant and 3 referrals challenged by the other, and ordered the union to compensate them for lost wages and benefits.

The Board declined to award costs.

The applicant union requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board state a case to the Divisional Court for contempt under section 13 of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act.

The respondents had previously refused to post Board notices regarding certification and unfair labour practice applications, and had obstructed a Labour Relations Officer attempting to post them.

The Board determined that it could state a case without holding a hearing, as the Divisional Court acts as the trial court for the contempt proceeding.

The Board consented to state the case, including the facts of the respondents' non-compliance and the officer's reports of obstruction.

The union applied for certification and filed unfair labour practice complaints.

The employer refused to post the required Board notices to employees.

Board officers, accompanied by a sheriff's officer, forcibly entered the employer's premises to post the notices.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing that the Board lacked jurisdiction to use force and that its actions created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Board dismissed the objections, holding that its statutory power to enter premises to post notices implicitly includes the authority to use reasonable force.

The Board found that a reasonable person would view the actions as fulfilling the Board's statutory duties, not as allying with the union.

The union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board contesting the grievor's discharge and denial of subsistence allowance.

The grievor had submitted rent receipts, purportedly signed by his father, to claim a room and board allowance from Ontario Hydro.

An investigation revealed the receipts were signed by the grievor's brother and the grievor did not actually pay rent for a self-contained domestic establishment.

The Board found the grievor was not entitled to the allowance and that his fraudulent conduct justified his discharge.

The grievance was dismissed, though the Board declined to order restitution of the $11,196 already paid, citing a lack of jurisdiction.

The union applied for certification to represent part-time employees of a community college.

The college objected, arguing it was a Crown agency and therefore not subject to the Labour Relations Act.

The union argued that if the college was a Crown agency, the exclusion of part-time employees from collective bargaining legislation violated their freedom of association under the Charter.

The Board held that the college is a Crown agency due to the substantial control exercised by the Crown.

The Board further held that it lacked jurisdiction to use the Charter to read down the Interpretations Act or other external statutes to expand its own jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union sought certification to represent employees of the related respondent employers.

During the organizing drive, management held meetings with employees where they strongly expressed anti-union sentiments, suggested forming an employee committee instead, and reminded employees of the terminal date to file opposition.

Following these meetings, an employee circulated a petition (statement of desire) opposing the union.

The Board found that management's statements exceeded the bounds of permissible free speech and constituted undue influence, thereby tainting the voluntariness of the subsequent petition.

As the union demonstrated sufficient membership support, the Board granted interim certification pending the resolution of the status of three specific employees.

The applicant union applied for certification of drivers and walkers engaged in the respondent's messenger service.

The respondent challenged the application on the basis that its labour relations fell under federal jurisdiction, arguing that the messenger service was an integral arm of its cross-Canada courier service.

The Board found that the messenger service operated as an independent local business serving the public at large, and was not so integral to the federal courier undertaking as to fall outside provincial jurisdiction.

The Board concluded that the labour relations of the messenger service fell within provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant union, CUPE, applied for a declaration under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act that it had acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of the predecessor union, the Bethesda Service Employees Association, following a merger vote.

The employer took a neutral position, but a group of employees objected, suggesting some employees had second thoughts after the vote.

The Board found that the merger vote was well-attended and properly conducted, and that the employees' concerns did not warrant refusing the declaration or directing a new representation vote.

The Board granted the declaration of successor rights.

The applicant union applied for certification.

During the hearing, it was revealed that the union's business agent had signed the receipt portion of two membership cards despite not being the actual collector of the initiation fees, and subsequently signed a Form 9 Declaration without noting any exceptions.

The Board found that the union representative had knowingly made a false representation to the Board.

Given the strict standards for membership evidence and the necessity of complete disclosure on Form 9, the Board declined to give any weight to the membership evidence and dismissed the application.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.

An employees' association sought to intervene but failed to provide written evidence that employees had applied for membership, leading the Board to deny it status.

The respondent employer argued the application should be barred because the applicant had recently withdrawn a similar application.

The Board declined to impose a time bar, finding no evidence that the withdrawal was an attempt to avoid a representation vote defeat.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit and referred the matter to a Board Officer to inquire into the list and composition of the unit.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the respondent employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to provide basic costing information and a list of bargaining unit employees during negotiations.

The Board found that the union required this information to meaningfully assess the employer's proposal of a 5% total compensation package.

The Board directed the employer to provide the requested information, confirming its earlier decision.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's bakery.

The parties disputed whether eight specific employees shared a community of interest with the driver salesmen and special drivers, and whether four supervisors exercised managerial functions under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the driver salesmen and special drivers had a distinct community of interest and excluded the eight disputed inside workers from their unit.

The Board also determined that only one of the four supervisors exercised managerial functions and excluded him, while including the other three in the bargaining unit.

The matter was directed to be listed for a hearing to consider the voluntariness of an objectors' petition.

The applicant union sought certification.

A group of employees filed a petition in opposition, which would have reduced the union's support below the 55% required for automatic certification.

The Board found that a foreman was directly involved in soliciting a signature for the petition, rendering it involuntary.

The employer and an objecting employee requested a representation vote due to the passage of time and alleged changes in the workforce.

The Board declined to order a vote, emphasizing the need for a fixed terminal date to assess membership support.

The application for certification was granted.

The complainant union filed unfair labour practice complaints against Ontario Hydro, EPSCA, and several construction trade unions, alleging violations of multiple sections of the Labour Relations Act arising from the implementation of a Maintenance Assist Agreement for nuclear reactor retubing work.

Ontario Hydro and EPSCA brought a motion to dismiss the complaints.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board allowed the motion and dismissed the complaints, finding that the dispute was fundamentally a jurisdictional dispute over work assignment rather than a representational issue or a violation of bargaining rights under the Act.

A dissenting member would have allowed the complaint to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated the Labour Relations Act by issuing mass termination notices to bargaining unit employees shortly after the union was certified.

The union argued the terminations were motivated by anti-union animus and violated the statutory freeze period under section 79.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the section 66 complaints, finding the terminations were driven by legitimate economic justifications and a pre-existing modernization plan, not anti-union animus.

Regarding the statutory freeze, the Board applied a 'reasonable expectations' test and held that the mass layoffs in the processing function did not violate section 79, as employees could reasonably expect layoffs during a severe economic downturn.

However, the Board found that contracting out the drapery workroom functions violated the freeze period, as it introduced a new method of operation outside the employees' reasonable expectations.

The complainant union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the respondent employers violated section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by permitting an incumbent union to post disparaging notices on company bulletin boards during an organizing campaign.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the complaints for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board granted the motion, finding that the posting of notices was permitted under the collective agreements and section 46(1)(c) of the Act, and therefore could not constitute a violation of section 64.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the employer terminated two employees and held a captive audience meeting to thwart an organizing campaign.

The Board found the employer's explanation of a work shortage lacked credibility and concluded the terminations and the meeting, which included threats to job security and promises of benefits, violated the Labour Relations Act.

Finding that the employer's substantial misconduct made it unlikely the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained in a representation vote, and that the union had adequate membership support, the Board certified the union under section 8 and ordered reinstatement and compensation for the terminated employees.