W. G. Donnelly

The employer requested reconsideration of a Board decision certifying the union, arguing that an employee was mistakenly omitted from the list of employees and that objecting employees were denied natural justice because they were not explicitly told they had to attend the hearing.

The Board denied the request, finding that the employer could not belatedly amend its list after the membership count was announced, and that the Board's standard notice to employees clearly stated the consequences of failing to attend the hearing to support a statement of desire.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of production employees.

The parties agreed on all matters except whether the 'chemical control supervisor' should be excluded.

The respondent initially sought exclusion on managerial grounds under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, but later changed its position to argue a lack of community of interest.

The Board permitted the change in argument as the applicant did not object during the Board Officer's examination.

Based on the Officer's report, the Board found the chemical control supervisor to be a technical employee with a greater community of interest with office and sales staff than with production employees, and excluded the position from the bargaining unit.

A certificate was issued for the agreed unit.

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 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 applicant union applied for certification to represent teachers employed by the respondent at Humewood House School.

The respondent objected, arguing the applicant was not a trade union under the Labour Relations Act because it included principals and vice-principals who exercise managerial functions.

The Board questioned its own jurisdiction, noting that the Labour Relations Act does not apply to teachers as defined in the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act.

The Board declined to accept the parties' agreement on jurisdiction and the appropriate bargaining unit, and directed a further hearing to receive evidence on these issues.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent projectionists employed by the respondent at two theatres in Goderich, Ontario.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent argued that part-time employees should form a separate bargaining unit, but the Board applied its policy that part-time employees are normally included in a craft unit.

Finding that more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant, the Board granted the application and ordered a certificate to issue.

The applicant union sought certification for employees of the respondent nursing home.

Following a representation vote, two employees who were on maternity leave objected that they had been omitted from the voters' list and were unable to vote.

The Board held that employees on maternity leave are eligible to vote because their prospects for continued employment are sufficiently certain.

However, the Board declined to set aside the vote, finding that one employee failed to take reasonable steps to inquire about her eligibility prior to the vote, and the other employee's ballot could not have mathematically affected the outcome.

The union was certified for the full-time bargaining unit.

The Canadian Paperworkers Union applied for certification to represent employees at Cooper Corrugated Containers Ltd. A group of employees filed a petition opposing the certification.

The Board held a hearing to determine the voluntariness of the petition.

The Board found the testimony of the petition's originator lacked credibility and failed to establish that the petition was a voluntary expression of the employees' true wishes.

Consequently, the Board declined to order a representation vote and granted interim certification to the union.

The complainant, the former Business Manager of Local 527, alleged that the respondents interfered with a local union election through intimidation and coercion, contrary to section 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

The complainant relied on a series of prior incidents, including alleged physical threats and irregularities during the ballot counting, to argue that the election results should be set aside.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the Board's jurisdiction over internal union affairs is limited to actual threats of physical or economic harm.

The Board concluded that the evidence did not establish a pattern of conduct amounting to intimidation or coercion, and dismissed the complaint.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his authority to appoint a single arbitrator under section 45 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer objected to the appointment, arguing that the grievance concerning a safety and attendance bonus arose after the expiry of both the collective agreement and the statutory freeze period.

The trade union contended that the right to the bonus accrued during the agreement and freeze period.

The Board advised the Minister that he has the authority to appoint an arbitrator, as the arbitrator has the jurisdiction to interpret the collective agreement and determine whether the grievance is arbitrable and valid.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of production employees.

The issue was whether a numerical control programmer shared a community of interest with the production employees or should be excluded as office/technical staff.

The Board applied the Usarco criteria, focusing on conditions of employment, organizational structure, and functional coherence.

Finding that the programmer shared similar compensation, hours, and reporting structures with production workers, the Board concluded there was a community of interest and included the position in the bargaining unit.

The applicant, the son of the effective owner of the employer's business, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The sole issue was whether the petition circulated by the applicant was voluntary.

The Board found that employees could reasonably perceive the applicant as an arm of management due to his close family ties, his occasional role as acting manager, and his reliance on his father's business practices during discussions with employees.

Consequently, the Board held the petition was not voluntary and dismissed the application.

The applicant, an employers' organization, applied for accreditation as the bargaining agent for employers in the non-destructive testing industry who have a bargaining relationship with the respondent council of trade unions.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant met the statutory requirements to be an employers' organization.

The Board also determined that the requested unit of employers, which included multiple sectors of the construction industry, was appropriate for collective bargaining given the specialized nature of the industry and the existing exemptions from province-wide bargaining.

A Certificate of Accreditation was issued.

The applicant, a university professor, sought a religious exemption from the compulsory dues checkoff provisions in the collective agreement between the university and the faculty association under section 47 of the Labour Relations Act.

He argued that his non-conformist Protestant Christian beliefs precluded him from supporting the adversarial nature of a trade union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that while the applicant held sincere religious beliefs, his opposition to the union was actually grounded in his legal analysis of the York University Act and his belief that faculty members are 'academic managers', rather than being caused by his religious convictions.

The complainant, an overhead crane operator, was sent home and issued a written warning for insubordination after refusing to move a crane.

He filed a complaint alleging the discipline violated section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, claiming he was exercising his right to refuse unsafe work under section 23.

The Board found that at the time of the refusal, the crane was stationary with its lifting device raised, posing no danger.

The Board concluded the refusal was motivated by frustration with a trainee foreman rather than genuine safety concerns.

The complaint was dismissed, with one Board member dissenting on the basis that the workplace's haphazard approach to crane safety justified the complainant's actions.

The applicants applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union for two bargaining units of the intervener employer.

The Board dismissed the application regarding the non-ICI sector as untimely.

For the ICI sector, the union argued the relevant bargaining unit for termination was the province-wide unit under the provincial agreement, meaning the applicants lacked the required 45% support.

The Board held that the correct bargaining unit for termination purposes is the employer-specific unit, not the province-wide unit.

Finding that the applicants had the requisite support within the employer's ICI unit, the Board directed a representation vote.

The applicant union filed a grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act alleging the respondent company failed to remit various benefit payments.

The union sought an order for substitutional service of a subpoena on the respondent's principal, who was evading service.

The Board held that it lacks the statutory authority to order substitutional service of a subpoena or to issue a direction to appear carrying penal consequences without personal service.

The Board outlined the applicant's options to either seek an adjournment to effect personal service or proceed on the merits with available evidence.

The applicant, the sole employee in the bargaining unit, applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

The union argued that a bargaining unit must consist of more than one employee for a termination application to be brought.

The Board rejected this argument, finding that a single employee can apply for termination.

However, the Board dismissed the application because the employer had been actively involved in its inception and preparation, making it impossible to conclude that the application was a truly voluntary expression of the employee's wishes.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of graduate students employed by the respondent university and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

Because the application was filed near the end of the academic year, the vast majority of the proposed bargaining unit's employment contracts terminated shortly after the application date.

The union requested that the Board depart from its normal voter eligibility rules and allow all persons employed on the application date to vote.

The Board declined this request, noting it would enfranchise many persons with no continuing interest in the unit.

Instead, recognizing the cyclical nature of the employment, the Board directed that the pre-hearing representation vote be deferred until October, when a representative number of employees would be in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to consider established industry practices when assigning work.

The respondents argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matter was a jurisdictional dispute that should be resolved by the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board.

The Board held that it has jurisdiction to interpret the language of the collective agreement, even if the grievance has jurisdictional overtones, and directed the matter to be listed for continuation of hearing.