W.F. Rutherford

During a hearing into complaints of arbitrary and discriminatory hiring hall referrals, the complainants sought leave to cross-examine their own witness.

They argued she was a hostile witness and relied on section 23 of the Evidence Act due to alleged inconsistencies between her examination-in-chief and cross-examination.

The Board denied the request, finding no factual or legal basis to declare the witness hostile.

The Board also held that section 23 of the Evidence Act was inapplicable because the alleged inconsistent statements were made during the witness's present testimony before the Board, not 'at some other time' as required by the statute.

The complainant, a part-time dockhand, alleged that the union and employer breached sections 66(b) and 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

He claimed the union failed to represent him fairly by not consulting part-time employees during bargaining, not negotiating just cause protections for them, and refusing to file a grievance when he was removed from the part-time list.

The Board found that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 by failing to consult part-time employees prior to or during collective bargaining.

However, the Board dismissed the allegations regarding the failure to negotiate just cause protections and the refusal to file a grievance, finding the union correctly interpreted the collective agreement as not providing substantive discharge protections for part-time employees.

The section 66(b) complaint was also dismissed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued several decisions regarding applications for certification and unfair labour practice complaints.

In the first case, the Board found that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act when three managers obtained signatures on a petition opposing the trade union.

The Board directed a representation vote and ordered remedial measures, including a posting and union access to employees.

Other decisions addressed the appropriate bargaining unit for a specialized business centre in a department store, a duty of fair representation complaint involving municipal technical employees, a sale of a business application concerning a retail food store, and the exclusion of a chemical control supervisor from a bargaining unit based on community of interest.

The applicant trade union sought a declaration that the respondent was bound by its collective agreement with Dominion Stores Limited, alleging a sale of business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent had opened an Italian-style supermarket in the same shopping plaza premises previously occupied by Dominion, after Dominion surrendered its lease and the respondent entered into a new lease with the landlord.

The respondent also purchased some of Dominion's leftover fixtures.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the transactions were independent and the respondent's presence represented the expansion of its existing parallel business rather than the purchase of Dominion's business.

The applicant union sought relief under sections 1(4), 63, and 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

Local 800 sought status to intervene based on a maintenance agreement with the respondent employer.

The Board found that the maintenance agreement was signed when there were no employees at work and Local 800 did not subsequently supply members of its own union for all covered trades, constituting employer support under section 48(a) of the Act.

Consequently, the agreement was not a valid collective agreement, and Local 800 was denied status to intervene.

Local 800 and the respondents requested an adjournment to challenge the ruling in court.

The Board denied the adjournment, finding that the balance of convenience favoured continuing the proceedings to avoid prejudice to the applicant.

The Board previously found that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation towards the complainant technical and professional employees.

In this hearing to determine the appropriate remedy and to consider an application for certification by the complainants' newly formed association, the Board declined to fragment the existing bargaining unit.

The Board also declined to award damages, finding no causal link between the union's breach and the final wage settlement.

Instead, the Board ordered the restructuring of the union's bargaining committee to ensure proportional representation for the higher-rated employees and ordered the posting of a notice acknowledging the breach.

During a hearing into a complaint of bad faith bargaining, the complainant union served a summons duces tecum on an officer of the respondent employer, requiring the production of payroll and benefit records for all employees during a strike.

The union alleged the employer demanded concessions while paying strike replacements and salaried employees higher wages and benefits.

The employer objected to producing records for salaried and managerial employees, claiming confidentiality.

The Board ordered the production of the records for any employees who performed bargaining unit work during the strike, finding the information potentially relevant to assessing the employer's motivation and economic justification for its bargaining positions.

The Board directed the documents be deposited with the Registrar to facilitate examination and potential enforcement proceedings.

The applicant union sought a declaration that Thorn Press and Stevens Reproductions were related employers under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively that a sale of a business had occurred under section 63.

Thorn Press had closed its lithographic department and allowed Stevens Reproductions to operate out of its premises using its equipment to perform the bulk of its lithographic work.

The Board found that Thorn retained effective control over the lithographic business carried on by Stevens Reproductions.

The Board exercised its discretion to declare the two entities one employer for the purposes of the Act.

The union applied for certification of a single bargaining unit comprising office, clerical, technical, and food services employees at Ryerson Polytechnical Institute.

The employer argued for three separate units dividing career and non-career employees, and sought to exclude employees funded by special projects.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that a single, comprehensive bargaining unit was appropriate, finding a shared community of interest among career and long-term non-career employees and emphasizing the Board's aversion to fragmented bargaining structures.

The Board also refused to exclude special project employees, noting the source of funding does not negate their right to collective bargaining.

The complainants alleged that the respondent union locals violated a written settlement of an earlier unfair labour practice complaint regarding the integration of seniority lists following a hospital merger.

The settlement required the union to hold specific meetings to recommend integrated seniority before a ratification vote.

The Board found that the union executive held additional, exclusionary meetings that undermined the settlement, thereby violating section 89(7) of the Labour Relations Act.

The majority of the Board ordered that the integrated seniority lists be implemented as if the vote had succeeded, while the Vice-Chairman dissented on remedy, preferring to set aside the settlement and hear the original complaint on its merits.

The union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of hospital service workers, excluding technical and paramedical employees.

The hospital argued that technical and paramedical personnel share a community of interest with service workers and should be included in the unit.

The Board expressed concern over the potential delay and cost of resolving the status of numerous classifications.

The Board directed the parties to investigate and particularize the classifications in dispute to narrow the issues before a further hearing.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employers violated the collective agreement.

Prior to the hearing, counsel for the parties negotiated a settlement.

The respondent later argued its counsel lacked the authority to bind Min-A-Mart Ltd. The Board found that the respondent's counsel had ostensible authority to settle the matter on behalf of both employers and that the applicant reasonably relied on this representation.

The Board enforced the settlement and declared Min-A-Mart Ltd. bound by the provincial collective agreement.

The complainants filed a work assignment dispute under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent union argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the pre-conditions for a complaint were not met.

The Board found that the respondent union had filed a grievance demanding that the subcontractor assign the disputed work to its members rather than to members of another union.

Consequently, the Board ruled that the union had required an employer to assign work to its members, satisfying the pre-conditions of section 91(1), and affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The applicant employees applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

Although the employees initiated the petition independently, the employer subsequently provided financial assistance to the employees to attend the Board hearing in Toronto.

The Board found that this financial assistance constituted employer interference under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act, as it aligned the employer with the employees seeking termination.

Consequently, the Board could not rely on the petition as a voluntary expression of the employees' wishes and dismissed the application.

The intervener challenged the applicant union's membership evidence in a certification application, alleging that two employees did not pay the required one dollar initiation fee.

The Board found that one employee did not pay the fee, invalidating his card, but concluded the collector's error was innocent rather than deliberate.

The Board accepted the remaining membership evidence, finding the applicant met the 35% threshold required for a pre-hearing representation vote, and directed that the sealed ballots be counted.

The complainant union alleged the respondent employer failed to bargain in good faith.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding lack of particularity and delay, which the Board dismissed or deferred.

During the hearing, the union sought to introduce evidence of private conversations between its representative and a Ministry of Labour mediator.

The Board ruled this evidence inadmissible, holding that communications with a mediator in the absence of the other party are confidential and protected under section 111(2) of the Labour Relations Act to preserve the integrity of the conciliation process.

The applicants referred a grievance to the Board for arbitration.

At the hearing, the applicants argued that a binding settlement had been reached between counsel prior to the hearing.

The respondent argued that its supervisor lacked the authority to instruct counsel to settle without the president's approval.

The Board held that where counsel holds themselves out as having authority to settle, and the other party has no notice of any limitation on that authority, the settlement is binding.

The Board found that a settlement was reached and ordered its implementation.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of bricklayers and stonemasons employed by the respondent municipality.

The respondent argued that an existing collective agreement with the intervener union covered these employees and acted as a bar to the application, seeking to introduce extrinsic evidence of negotiations to prove this intent.

The Board held that the collective agreement, which defined employees as those on the active payroll and lacked construction industry provisions, clearly did not cover construction bricklayers.

Finding no patent or latent ambiguity in the agreement, the Board refused to admit the extrinsic evidence.

The applicant union sought certification for a production unit, arguing that engineering department employees lacked a community of interest and should be excluded.

The respondent employer sought to include them, citing future plans for engineering personnel to perform substantial work on the shop floor.

The Board initially ruled that evidence of community of interest must be confined to circumstances existing on the application date.

Upon the employer's request for reconsideration, the Board revoked its ruling, holding that in the unique circumstances of the case, the employer could adduce evidence of future shop work, with its relevance and weight to be determined later.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection to dismiss a section 68 complaint due to the complainant's delay in filing.

The Board ruled that the complaint would be heard on its merits.

However, due to the delay, the complainant was denied monetary compensation for the period between February 1, 1982, and April 14, 1983.

The respondents were held liable for compensation during a sine die adjournment because they failed to stipulate otherwise as a condition of the adjournment.