W. G. Donnelly

The complainant refused to perform assigned work due to an honest belief that it endangered her health, exercising her rights under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

However, she failed to remain at the workplace and call for an inspector as required.

In this dissenting opinion, the Board Member argued that because the complainant did not follow the proper procedure of standing by for an inspection, the compensation ordered against the respondent should have been shared or reduced.

The Member also criticized the Occupational Health Branch for declining to conduct an immediate inspection after the complainant's employment was terminated.

The complainant, a jeweller, refused to perform electro-plating work using a cyanide solution in an improvised setup in a washroom, fearing exposure to toxic hydrogen cyanide gas.

After experiencing symptoms and seeking medical attention, she refused to continue the work the next day.

The employer gave her an ultimatum to do the work or leave, which the Board found constituted a constructive discharge.

The Board held that the complainant had reasonable grounds to believe the work was unsafe and that her discharge for exercising her right to refuse unsafe work violated section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The employer was ordered to pay compensation for lost wages and benefits.

The hospital filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the assignment of maintenance work.

Following the conversion of its boiler-room to a newer system, the hospital no longer required licensed stationary engineers.

The International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) both claimed jurisdiction over the remaining maintenance work.

The Board found that the work no longer required the specialized skills of a stationary engineer and directed that the work be assigned exclusively to CUPE members.

The Board also amended the scope clause of the IUOE collective agreement to restrict it to activities requiring a licensed stationary engineer, effectively leaving the IUOE bargaining unit vacant.

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 applicant union sought a declaration that the respondent, More Groceteria Limited, was a successor employer bound by a collective agreement with Loblaws Limited.

Loblaws had closed a neighbourhood store, transferred its employees, and subleased the premises to the respondent, who also purchased the store's fixtures.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the transaction constituted a sale of a part of Loblaws' business under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board emphasized that in the retail food industry, goodwill often inheres in the premises themselves, and the direct commercial dealings between the parties supported a finding of a sale rather than a mere asset disposition.

The application was granted, with one member dissenting.

The applicant union sought certification for dispatchers and telephone operators employed by a Windsor taxi company.

The employer challenged the Ontario Labour Relations Board's jurisdiction, arguing its business was a federal undertaking because it serviced the Windsor Airport and railway station, and occasionally transported passengers and freight across the border to Detroit.

The Board applied the Eastern Stevedoring and Winner tests, concluding that the employer's services were merely a convenience to federal aviation and rail undertakings, not an integral part of them.

Furthermore, the extra-provincial border crossings constituted only 1-2% of its business and were casual and irregular, meaning the business was in pith and substance a local, provincial undertaking.

Having found jurisdiction, the Board granted interim certification under section 7a of the Labour Relations Act due to the employer's uncontested unfair labour practices.

The trade union applied under section 95(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine whether certain cost and financial analysts were employees for the purposes of the Act.

The employer argued they were excluded under section 1(3)(b) because they were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

The Board found that the analysts regularly used projected labour rate increases and costed alternative proposals for collective bargaining and business planning.

Because this information was confidential and its disclosure would prejudice the employer's labour relations, the Board concluded that all the disputed classifications were excluded from the bargaining unit.