W. H. Wightinan

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of Gallup Canada, Inc. in Metropolitan Toronto.

The responding party failed to file a timely reply or raise the exclusion of analysts from the bargaining unit by the terminal date.

The Board declined to permit the responding party to belatedly raise the issue, finding it would prejudice the union.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit and found that more than 55 per cent of the employees in the unit had applied to become members of the union.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated the statutory freeze and failed to bargain in good faith.

Following the expiration of the collective agreement, the employer laid off unionized employees and subsequently hired non-union workers to perform bargaining unit work without applying the terms of the expired agreement.

The employer also presented proposals with significant wage cuts and resisted further negotiations, seeking to end its relationship with the union due to economic difficulties.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer violated the statutory freeze under section 81 and failed to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered compensation for the section 81 violation and directed the employer to resume bargaining, declining the union's request to impose a collective agreement as a remedy.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's wholesale food business.

The union filed documentary evidence of membership for more than 55% of the employees.

A group of objecting employees filed a petition opposing certification, which included signatures from employees who had previously signed union cards.

The Board denied the objectors' request for an indefinite adjournment due to the medical unavailability of their principal witness, noting the prejudicial delay it would cause.

The Board found the petition unreliable because it was circulated with the active involvement of the owner's brother and was not supported by cross-examined testimony.

The Board also determined that two disputed employees did not exercise managerial functions.

The Board granted the union's application for certification without a representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of laboratory employees at the respondent's manufacturing facility.

The employer argued that the laboratory staff shared a community of interest with the office staff and that a separate unit would unduly fragment the bargaining structure.

The Board found that the laboratory employees had a significantly stronger community of interest with the organized production workers than with the office staff.

To avoid undue fragmentation, the Board determined that the appropriate bargaining unit should be framed as a tag-end unit encompassing all unrepresented employees, including the laboratory staff.

The Board issued a certificate as the union had the requisite membership support.

The applicant union applied for certification for two bargaining units at the respondent hotel.

The Board found that the head housekeeper exercised managerial functions and excluded him from the units.

The respondent argued that the application should be dismissed under section 12 of the Labour Relations Act because the head housekeeper, acting as management, solicited union memberships.

The Board held that section 12 did not apply because the head housekeeper was acting contrary to the employer's interests and employees did not perceive him as acting on behalf of management.

However, due to concerns about threats of job loss and misrepresentations made by the head housekeeper during the organizing campaign, the Board exercised its discretion to order a representation vote.