W.F. Rutherford

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging violations of sections 48, 49, 64, 66, 67, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act, arising from Ontario Hydro assigning nuclear reactor retubing work to members of various construction trade unions under Maintenance Assist Agreements.

The respondent trade unions brought a motion to dismiss the complaint against them.

The Board granted the motion, finding that sections 64, 66, and 67(1) apply only to employers or their agents, not trade unions.

The Board further held that section 49 does not apply to multiple unions, the section 70 allegations lacked particulars and did not involve coercion to refrain from exercising rights, and the section 48 and 67(2) allegations were essentially an attempt to convert a jurisdictional dispute over work assignment into a representational issue.

The complaint against the respondent trade unions was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of service workers at the respondent hospital.

The hospital argued that the unit should be broader and include various technical, paramedical, and clerical classifications.

The Board reviewed the history and principles of bargaining unit determination in the hospital sector.

It concluded that Registered Nursing Assistants (RNA's) and Nursing Technicians should be included in the service unit due to established collective bargaining practice.

However, other technical personnel, lab assistants, and ward clerks were excluded, as they could appropriately be placed in paramedical or clerical units without affecting the viability of the service unit.

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

The respondent employer challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing its labour relations fell under federal jurisdiction because it employed aircraft in its business.

The respondent also requested a hearing prior to the vote to address jurisdiction, the bargaining unit scope, and vote arrangements for employees on overseas assignments.

The Board dismissed the request for a pre-vote hearing, noting that the purpose of a pre-hearing vote is expedition and that jurisdictional issues are properly addressed at a hearing after the vote is conducted.

The Board directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be taken and the ballot box sealed pending further order.

During the hearing of consolidated complaints, the complainants sought to adduce certain evidence in reply to impugn the credibility of the respondents' witnesses and to show that a respondent offered positions in exchange for terminating the case.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that the complainants could not split their case by calling evidence in reply that should have been called in chief or put to the witnesses in cross-examination under the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

The Board also excluded evidence of settlement efforts, finding it irrelevant to the merits of the complaints.

The Communications Workers of Canada applied for certification to represent employees of CTG Telecommunications Systems, an interconnect company that sells, installs, and maintains telephone systems.

The respondent challenged the Ontario Labour Relations Board's jurisdiction, arguing its operations were an integral part of the Bell Canada network and thus fell under federal jurisdiction.

The Board held that the respondent's operations were not vital, essential, or integral to the core federal undertaking of Bell Canada, and therefore fell within provincial jurisdiction.

The Board also determined the composition of the appropriate bargaining unit and ordered a representation vote.

The complainant, a transit driver, was dismissed after a series of incidents including invoking the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) to refuse to operate a streetcar he claimed had defective brakes.

He filed complaints alleging he was dismissed for invoking the OHSA and that his union breached its duty of fair representation by refusing to take his grievance to arbitration.

The Board dismissed both complaints, finding that the complainant was discharged for insubordination and his poor disciplinary record, not for invoking the OHSA.

The Board also found the union had properly investigated the grievance, considered its merits, and reasonably concluded it would not succeed at arbitration.

The applicant employer sought to reopen a settlement and vary a collective agreement under section 106 of the Labour Relations Act.

The parties had recently negotiated a compromise regarding the inclusion of home care co-ordinators in the bargaining unit, maintaining the status quo for existing employees but including new hires.

The employer conceded that the co-ordinators were employees and did not exercise managerial functions.

The Board dismissed the application, finding no basis under section 106 to interfere with a sensible settlement arrived at by both parties acting in good faith, noting that once a collective agreement is signed, any initial certificate is spent.

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

The respondent requested a stay of proceedings pending an application for judicial review, which the Board denied.

The parties disputed the status of four individuals who were employed as students during the summer but had requested to continue working part-time during the school year.

The Board held that employee status is determined as of the application date.

Since the four individuals were 'students employed during the school vacation period' on the application date, they were excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board found that more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant and issued a certificate.

During applications for certification of limousine drivers, a dispute arose regarding the composition of the bargaining unit and the employment status of the drivers (whether they were employees, dependent contractors, or independent contractors).

The applicant union requested to review and copy the employee lists provided by the respondents.

The respondents objected, arguing the lists should remain confidential.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the union is entitled to review and copy the employee lists to meaningfully participate in the hearing and address the complex issues regarding the bargaining unit's composition.

A dissenting board member argued the lists should only be examined in the presence of a Labour Relations Officer to prevent their use for organizing purposes.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Although the union filed membership evidence exceeding the 55 per cent threshold required for automatic certification, a timely statement in opposition (petition) was filed by employees.

The Board inquired into the origination and circulation of the petition to determine if it was voluntary.

Despite some contradictions in the testimony of the employee representatives and concerns about their prior roles on an employee committee, the majority of the Board found no evidence of management interference or that employees would perceive the petition as a management initiative.

The Board accepted the petition as voluntary and directed a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, finding the petitioners' testimony contradictory and concluding the petition did not reflect the true wishes of the employees.

The applicant union applied for certification to displace the incumbent union and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The parties agreed on a voting constituency description that differed from the existing collective agreement.

The Board accepted most of the agreed-upon changes as they did not alter the actual composition of the unit, but rejected the addition of the phrase 'persons covered by subsisting collective agreements' because it introduced potential uncertainty.

The Board directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be taken using the modified voting constituency description.

Two applications were filed to terminate the bargaining rights of the Teamsters Union Local 938 for employees of Brink's Canada Limited at its North Bay location.

The union argued the applications should be dismissed because the master collective agreement created a single, comprehensive bargaining unit across multiple locations.

The Board rejected this argument, finding that the master agreement preserved separate bargaining units for each location and local union.

On the merits, the Board found the statement of desire for the full-time unit was voluntary and ordered a representation vote.

However, the application for the part-time unit was dismissed due to insufficient evidence regarding the origination and circulation of the statement.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote for employees of the two named respondents at a specific location.

The respondents argued that the voting constituency should also include employees of a third related company at a different location, and that a hearing must be held before any vote.

The Board rejected the respondents' argument that a hearing was a condition precedent to a pre-hearing vote, noting that the purpose of the procedure is to test representation quickly.

The Board defined the voting constituency to include only the employees of the two named respondents, directed a pre-hearing vote with separate ballot boxes, and ordered the boxes sealed pending a full hearing on the appropriate bargaining unit and related employer issues.

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

The Board initially sealed the ballot box due to defects in the membership evidence, specifically the absence of collectors' signatures on the receipts and a problematic Form 9 Declaration.

After hearing oral evidence from the Form 9 declarant and the collectors, the Board was satisfied that the initiation fees were properly collected and the inquiries required by Form 9 were carried out.

The Board found the membership evidence satisfactory, unsealed the ballot box, and, upon counting a majority in favour of the applicant, granted certification.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at Markham Hydro Electric Commission.

The union filed membership evidence demonstrating support from more than 55% of the employees.

However, a group of employees filed a petition objecting to the certification, which would normally prompt the Board to order a representation vote if found to be voluntary.

The Board determined that the petition was not a voluntary expression of employee wishes because it was prepared and circulated on company time, using company resources, and in the presence of a management foreman, creating a perception of management involvement.

The Board disregarded the petition and granted certification without a vote.

One Board member dissented, arguing that a secret ballot vote should have been ordered.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer failed to bargain in good faith during negotiations for a renewal collective agreement, leading to a prolonged strike.

The union argued that the employer engaged in surface bargaining, withdrew previous offers, and delayed responding to union proposals.

The Board found that the employer's initial hard bargaining and subsequent changes in position due to economic circumstances did not amount to bad faith.

However, the Board held that the employer violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to promptly respond to the union's fresh proposals presented in September 1983.

The Board issued a declaration of this violation but declined to award damages, noting that both parties shared responsibility for the breakdown in negotiations.

During an unfair labour practice complaint regarding a union hiring hall, the complainants sought to introduce a transcript of evidence given by the respondent in prior criminal proceedings.

The respondents objected, arguing the transcript was inadmissible and relying on section 13 of the Charter.

The Board ruled the transcript admissible under its broad evidentiary powers, finding that section 13 of the Charter does not apply to quasi-civil, compensatory proceedings before the Board.

The Board also denied the complainants' request for costs.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of carpenters and carpenters' apprentices in the construction industry.

The respondent employer argued the unit should be restricted to 'registered' apprentices, which the Board rejected.

The parties also disputed whether two employees, Lauzon and Campbell, were performing carpentry work on the application date.

The Board found that Lauzon was working as a carpenter and included him in the unit, but concluded that Campbell was working as a carpenter's helper and excluded him.

Finding that the union had between 45 and 55 percent membership support in the four-employee unit, the Board directed a representation vote.

The complainants requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision, arguing that the Board's refusal to sever an existing bargaining unit violated their freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the request, holding that freedom of association does not guarantee the unfettered right to enter a bargaining unit of one's choosing.

The Board noted that majoritarian principles and the establishment of viable bargaining structures do not infringe upon constitutional rights.

The complainants sought to adduce evidence that the respondent union's hiring hall records had been altered, in order to undermine the credibility of the records filed with the Board.

The respondents objected on the basis that the complainants failed to comply with the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Board's Rules of Procedure regarding timely particularization.

The Board exercised its discretion to allow the evidence to be adduced, subject to terms including an adjournment for the respondents to prepare for cross-examination and a requirement that the complainants produce previous witnesses for cross-examination.