W.F. Rutherford

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the employer unlawfully interfered with its organizing campaign by soliciting grievances, providing additional help, and sending anti-union communications.

The Board found that the employer violated section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by soliciting grievances and conferring benefits (part-time help) to undermine the union.

However, the employer's written communications were deemed lawful free speech.

The Board declined to grant automatic certification under section 8, finding that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained after applying remedial measures, including a posting and union access to employees.

The application for certification was dismissed.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices by terminating a student employee who was an active union supporter.

The employee had requested a Saturdays-only schedule, which the employer claimed was unavailable.

After the employee mentioned the union in a meeting regarding his schedule, he was immediately terminated.

The Board found that the employer failed to discharge the reverse onus of proving the termination was free from anti-union motivation, violating section 66 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also found that the employer violated the section 79(1) statutory freeze by unilaterally altering the employee's privilege to work available Saturday hours.

The Board ordered reinstatement with compensation.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit consisting of employees at the Orangeville Sports Complex, claiming craft status under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act based on the requirement for a 'B' class refrigeration ticket.

The respondent municipality argued for a comprehensive unit of all outside employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant failed to establish the requirements for a craft unit, noting a lack of evidence of a history of separate bargaining for such employees.

The Board determined the proposed unit was inappropriate and, finding the applicant had less than forty-five percent membership in the appropriate broader unit, dismissed the application.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the working agreement relied upon by the union was signed under economic duress caused by an unlawful strike and picketing.

The Board found that the Building Trades Council had engaged in unlawful conduct by threatening and causing an unlawful strike to force the employer to sign the agreement.

Consequently, the Board declined to give effect to the working agreement, finding no valid collective bargaining relationship existed.

The grievance was dismissed.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer closed its egg grading business and sold it to a newly formed company to evade its collective bargaining obligations.

The union sought a declaration that a sale of business occurred and that its bargaining rights bound the new company, as well as remedies for unfair labour practices.

The Board found that a sale of business had occurred, but that the union's bargaining rights did not extend to the new company's location.

The Board also found that the plant closure was economically motivated and not an unfair labour practice.

However, the Board concluded that the new company unlawfully refused to hire several former employees because of their suspected union activity, and that the predecessor employer unlawfully discharged a key union organizer.

The Board ordered reinstatement and compensation for the affected employees.

The complainant filed a complaint under section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging twenty instances of rights violations by the respondent employer.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board reviewed the allegations, noting that only two related to the Act, including a work refusal due to dust which was resolved by a joint health and safety committee inspection.

The Board found no substantial harm or valid reprisal in the remaining allegations and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant employer sought a declaration that a strike continued by the respondent union after the sale of a business was unlawful.

The Board held that under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, the sale of a business suspends a union's right to strike until the statutory preconditions, including notice to bargain and conciliation, have been exhausted with the successor employer.

However, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to declare the strike unlawful because the employer had taken the position that the sole employee was terminated, creating substantial uncertainty.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant, an employee of the Ironworkers union, was discharged after 27 years of service.

She filed a grievance, but her bargaining agent, the OPEIU, declined to take it to arbitration.

The OPEIU relied on legal advice indicating that because the collective agreement had expired three years prior, an arbitrator would have no jurisdiction to hear the grievance.

The complainant alleged that the OPEIU breached its duty of fair representation and its duty to bargain in good faith.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding no evidence of bad faith, discrimination, or arbitrary conduct, and concluding that the union acted reasonably in relying on correct legal advice.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees working aboard the respondent's tugs in the Port of Hamilton.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing its operations fell under federal jurisdiction pursuant to the British North America Act's provisions on navigation and shipping.

The Board examined the respondent's operations, which included pushing a fuel barge, docking ships, and towing vessels extra-provincially.

The Board concluded that the respondent's tug boat operations were an integral part of or necessarily incidental to federal navigation and shipping undertakings.

Consequently, the Board found that the respondent's labour relations were governed by the Canada Labour Code rather than provincial legislation, and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union and the International Ladies Garment Workers Union both conducted organizing campaigns at the respondent's plant.

The respondent laid off four key union supporters.

The Amalgamated applied for certification and both unions filed unfair labour practice complaints.

The Board found that the layoffs were unlawfully motivated by anti-union animus.

However, the Board declined to grant certification without a vote under section 7a, reasoning that both unions had been equally damaged and had competing claims to employee allegiance.

Instead, the Board ordered extensive remedial measures, including reinstatement with compensation, a posting and mailing of notices, union access to the plant, and a new representation vote.

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the employer responded to its organizing campaign by relocating two union supporters, discharging the primary union organizer, and forcing another supporter to resign.

The employer claimed the relocations and terminations were for business reasons, including efficiency and absenteeism.

The Board found that the employer's actions were motivated by anti-union animus in violation of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the discharged employees with full compensation, along with a posting order, union access to the employer's premises and bulletin board, and a list of employee names and addresses.

The Board declined to award damages for loss of dignity or additional organizing expenses, and denied the union's request for consent to prosecute.

The applicant union applied for a declaration of successor rights under section 54 of the Labour Relations Act following a purported merger with the respondent association.

The intervener employer raised a preliminary objection that the applicant lacked status as a trade union in Ontario because it had no prior presence, officers, or permanent office in the province.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that the statutory definition of a trade union does not require a pre-existing presence in Ontario.

Finding that the applicant was a viable organization of employees with a written constitution and elected officers, the Board concluded it was a trade union within the meaning of the Act and directed the matter to proceed on the merits.

The applicant union applied under section 5 of The Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act, 1977, seeking a declaration that it is the sole bargaining agent for employees of the respondent municipality following the transfer of water and sewage treatment plants from the Province.

The intervener union argued that the transfer was not complete pending Ontario Municipal Board approval and sought to preserve a separate bargaining unit for the transferred employees.

The Board found that a transfer of functions had occurred and that the employees had been substantially intermingled.

Given the overwhelming majority of employees already represented by the applicant union and the labour relations difficulties of fragmenting the bargaining structure, the Board declared the applicant union the bargaining agent for the merged unit and terminated the intervener's bargaining rights without a representation vote.

The union applied for certification of two bargaining units: one for single-car owner-operators and one for drivers operating under the respondent's taxi company.

The Board found that the owner-operators were dependent contractors, and thus employees under the Labour Relations Act, due to their economic dependence on the respondent's financing, dispatch system, and rules.

The Board also determined that the drivers were employees of the respondent, not the owner-operators, because the respondent exercised fundamental control over their hiring, discipline, and daily work.

Finding that the respondent had committed unfair labour practices, the Board granted certification for both units under section 7a of the Act.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed an unfair labour practice by closing its Windsor Branch Plant and servicing the area from Chatham, arguing the closure was designed to remove the union as bargaining agent.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's decision was motivated solely by bona fide business considerations, specifically the loss of a major customer account and the need to improve profitability, and was devoid of any anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer failed to bargain in good faith.

After the union accepted the employer's contract offer, the employer insisted on a joint request to the Minister of Labour for an employee ratification vote under section 34d of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the employer's insistence on a ratification vote after the union had accepted the offer was an unlawful attempt to bypass the exclusive bargaining agent and deal directly with employees.

The Board directed the employer to execute the collective agreements and compensate employees for lost opportunity.

The Mechanical Contractors Association of Ontario and the Mechanical Contractors Association of Ottawa referred a grievance against Eastern Sheet Metal and Mechanical Contractors under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging failure to pay required industry fund contributions.

The Board held that it lacked jurisdiction under section 112a to determine a grievance between parties of like interest (an employer bargaining agency and an employer it represents).

However, the Board found that the non-payment of contributions violated section 134(2) of the Act, allowing the Board to grant relief under section 79.

The applicant, a secondary school teacher, filed a complaint alleging that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to proceed to arbitration with her grievance.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application on preliminary jurisdictional grounds.

The Board held that the Labour Relations Act does not apply to teachers, and the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act neither imposes a statutory duty of fair representation nor grants the Board jurisdiction to inquire into such complaints.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent nursing home violated the Labour Relations Act by contracting out its housekeeping and janitorial work to an independent cleaning service.

The union argued that the decision was motivated by anti-union sentiment and unlawfully relieved the employer of its obligations under the collective agreement.

The Board found that the employer's decision was made entirely for legitimate business reasons, specifically to improve cleaning quality and save costs, with no evidence of anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed, with one Board member dissenting.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of the respondent security company.

The respondent argued that all its employees were security guards and, under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act, could not be included in a bargaining unit with non-guards.

The Board found that by-law enforcement officers and airport security guards did not protect the property of an employer and were therefore not guards within the meaning of section 11.

The Board determined that a bargaining unit excluding actual guards was appropriate and issued a certificate to the applicant.