19 total
Grievor awarded lost wages, pension adjustments, compound interest, and tax gross-up following unjust dismissal.
The Grievance Settlement Board determined the appropriate remedy for a grievor who was unjustly dismissed in 1989.
The Board awarded the grievor his wages and Custodial Responsibility Allowance for the period from his dismissal until he began receiving long-term disability benefits.
The Board also ordered an adjustment to the grievor's pension entitlements to reflect the lost wages, compound interest at 13.5% on the amounts awarded, and a tax gross-up for any additional income taxes incurred due to receiving a lump sum payment.
The grievor's claim for a top-up of his long-term disability benefits was dismissed.
Grievor's business expenses partially allowed in calculating mitigation income; continuing money-losing business was reasonable.
In a supplementary decision to determine compensation following a finding that the employer failed to assign the grievor to an available position, the parties disputed the calculation of the grievor's mitigation income.
The grievor had started a consulting business that generated gross revenue but incurred greater expenses, resulting in a net loss.
The employer argued that gross revenue should be deducted from damages and challenged the reasonableness of the business expenses and the decision to continue the business for three years.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that it was not unreasonable to continue the business.
The Board allowed the home office and secretarial expenses, reduced the computer and mileage expenses, and disallowed promotional expenses related to sponsoring a hockey team.
The employer was directed to recalculate the allowable expenses and compensate the grievor accordingly.
Contracting out of government services constituted a transfer of an undertaking under the Crown Transfers Act.
The Ontario Public Service Employees Union applied for declarations under the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act that the Crown transferred undertakings to several private entities, including Moose Creek Forestry Company, Harold Luckasavitch, and Charmaine's Janitorial Services.
The functions involved transplanting seedlings, operating park campgrounds, and providing janitorial services.
The Board found that the provision of these services constituted 'undertakings' or parts of undertakings within the meaning of the Act, rather than mere sub-contracts for labour.
The Board declared that the undertakings were transferred to the private entities, binding them to the collective agreement between the Crown and the union.
Unfair labour practice complaint dismissed; communications regarding out-of-scope pilot program did not constitute direct bargaining.
The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer and Ministry of Health representatives violated sections 66 and 67(1) of the Labour Relations Act by bargaining directly with employees regarding terms for an Advanced Life Support Pilot Program and penalizing them for exercising their union rights.
The Board found that the work performed in the pilot program was outside the scope of the bargaining unit.
Consequently, the communications regarding terms and conditions for the program did not constitute direct bargaining in violation of the Act.
The complaint was dismissed.
Complaint of unlawful lock-out dismissed as union failed to prove employer's specific subjective intent.
The applicant union filed a complaint alleging that the respondent employer effected an unlawful lock-out by closing its restaurant shortly after a certification application was filed and representation vote arrangements were made.
The Board found that while the closure involved a withholding of work opportunities, the union failed to prove the specific subjective intent required to constitute a lock-out—namely, the intention to preserve the employment relationship on different terms or to compel employees to refrain from exercising statutory rights.
As the necessary intent was not established, the complaint was dismissed.
Union certified without a representation vote after intervener withdrew allegations of employer support.
The applicant trade union applied for certification for a unit of employees at the respondent's restaurant.
The incumbent union did not oppose the application and abandoned its bargaining rights.
An intervener union initially alleged employer support for the applicant but later withdrew its intervention and abandoned its opposition following a settlement.
The Board found that the applicant had established sufficient membership support and, given the withdrawal of the intervener and the lack of compelling evidence of employer support, exercised its discretion under section 7(2) of the Labour Relations Act to certify the applicant without a representation vote.
Union member entitled to financial statements despite active support for a rival union.
The complainant, a member of the respondent union, filed a complaint under section 85 of the Labour Relations Act seeking the release of the union's audited financial statements.
The union opposed the complaint, arguing that the complainant was acting as an agent for a rival union, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW), which she actively supported.
The Board held that the complainant's support for a rival union did not disentitle her to access the financial information of her own union under section 85.
The Board ordered the respondent union to deliver the audited financial statements to the complainant.
Applications to terminate bargaining rights dismissed as incumbent union's voluntary recognition agreements were validly ratified.
The applicant union sought to terminate the bargaining rights of the incumbent union and apply for certification to represent employees at food-service outlets at Pearson International Airport.
The incumbent union had entered into voluntary recognition agreements with a new concession operator, which were ratified by the employees.
The applicant argued these agreements should be set aside under section 60(1) and section 46(4) of the Labour Relations Act.
The Board dismissed the applications, finding that the employees had freely ratified the agreements and that the incumbent union had established it represented a majority of the employees at the time the agreements were entered into.
Unfair labour practice complaint dismissed; employer established discharge was for walking off the job, not anti-union animus.
The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer discharged the grievor due to anti-union animus, contrary to section 66(a) of the Labour Relations Act.
The grievor, who was the sole employee responsible for the union's organizing drive, walked off her shift after complaining that her section of the restaurant was unfairly overloaded.
The employer maintained that her departure constituted a resignation and refused to allow her to return to work.
The Board found that the employer was unaware of the grievor's union activities at the time of her discharge and that the decision was based entirely on her conduct of leaving customers unattended.
Sale of business found where subsidiary took over parent's store leases and continued retail food operations.
The applicant union alleged a sale of a business from Steinberg to Yesteryear under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively that they were related employers under section 1(4).
Steinberg closed two stores and transferred the leases and some assets to Yesteryear, a wholly owned subsidiary, which reopened them as warehouse-style stores with new employees.
The respondents argued the union was estopped from bringing the application because it had engaged in negotiations for a separate collective agreement with Yesteryear.
The Board found no waiver or estoppel, as the union made no promise not to exercise its statutory rights.
On the merits, the Board found a sale of a business occurred, as Yesteryear occupied the same premises and continued a substantially similar retail food business.
Yesteryear was declared bound by the predecessor's collective agreement.
Application for certification dismissed as proposed unit of night auditors was inappropriate and lacked sufficient membership.
The applicant trade union applied for certification for a bargaining unit consisting of two night auditors.
The respondent employer argued that the appropriate unit should be a 'tag end' unit encompassing all remaining unorganized employees, which would include nine employees across various classifications.
The Board found that the applicant's proposed unit was not viable for collective bargaining and would result in excessive fragmentation.
The Board determined that a 'tag end' unit was appropriate.
As the applicant had membership support of less than forty-five percent in the appropriate unit, the application for certification was dismissed.
Board refused to carve out skilled tradespeople from an existing comprehensive bargaining unit in a displacement application.
The applicant union applied for certification to displace the incumbent union as the bargaining agent for a comprehensive unit of outside workers.
After the applicant won a pre-hearing representation vote, a group of skilled tradespeople objected, seeking to be carved out into a separate bargaining unit represented by the incumbent union.
The Board dismissed the request, finding that the existing comprehensive unit had a long history of successful collective bargaining and that fragmenting it was not justified.
A certificate was issued to the applicant for the comprehensive unit.
Union certified without a vote after employer's massive unfair labour practices during organizing campaign.
The applicant union filed unfair labour practice complaints and an application for certification without a vote under section 7a of the Labour Relations Act.
The union alleged that the respondent hotel engaged in excessive security surveillance and discharged several employees for their union organizing activities.
The Board found that the respondent violated the Act by implementing security measures designed to restrict organizing and by discharging employees for their union involvement.
Concluding that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained through a vote and that the union had adequate membership support (30%), the Board certified the union and ordered the reinstatement of the discharged employees with compensation.
Property management company, not the hotel, found to be the true employer of maintenance employees.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent maintenance employees at the Sutton Place complex.
A dispute arose over whether the true employer was the Sutton Place Hotel or Dennis Management Company, the property manager.
Applying the seven factors from York Condominium, the Board found that while the employees reasonably perceived the Hotel as their employer, Dennis Management Company exercised fundamental control over hiring, firing, discipline, and wages.
The Board concluded Dennis Management Company was the employer.
The Board further determined that the appropriate bargaining unit was limited to the Sutton Place complex rather than all of the employer's locations in Metropolitan Toronto, and granted the certificate.
Union certified for part-time unit; representation vote ordered for full-time unit after voluntary petition.
The applicant trade union applied for certification for full-time and part-time employees of the respondent restaurant.
A statement of desire in opposition to the union was filed, bearing signatures of employees who had also signed union cards.
For the part-time unit, an employee voluntarily revoked his signature on the petition, leaving the union with sufficient support for automatic certification.
For the full-time unit, the Board heard evidence on the voluntariness of the petition.
Despite a gap in evidence regarding the petition's delivery to the Board and an employee meeting called by management, the Board found the petition was a voluntary expression of the employees' wishes.
Consequently, the Board directed a representation vote for the full-time bargaining unit.
Representation vote ordered where union membership cards bore the name of a predecessor local.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent hotel.
The respondent challenged the applicant's trade union status due to a recent merger of two locals, and argued against the exclusion of part-time employees and students from the bargaining unit.
The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and maintained its standard practice of excluding part-time employees and students.
However, because many membership cards bore the name of a predecessor local rather than the newly merged applicant, the Board found an element of doubt regarding the employees' intentions and ordered a representation vote.
One Board member dissented, arguing that the cards were valid and automatic certification should have been granted.
Grievor who sought both professional and trade employment took reasonable steps to mitigate damages.
Following a finding that the respondent unlawfully terminated the grievor's employment, the parties were unable to agree on the amount of compensation owed.
The respondent argued that the grievor failed to mitigate his loss by spending the majority of his job search time pursuing professional employment rather than trade employment.
The Board found that the grievor, who was qualified for both professional and trade positions, took reasonable steps to mitigate his loss by seeking employment in both fields.
The Board ordered the respondent to pay compensation for lost wages and to provide vacation credits that would have accrued but for the unlawful termination.
Union violated statutory freeze by unilaterally issuing withdrawal cards to its representatives after certification.
The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent union violated the statutory freeze period under section 70 of the Labour Relations Act.
The respondent union had unilaterally issued withdrawal cards to the grievors, who were its representatives and members of a bargaining unit recently certified by the complainant.
The Board found that the respondent altered a right, privilege, or term of employment without consent, as the issuance of withdrawal cards was not demanded by the union's constitution or past practice.
The Board ordered the grievors reinstated into active membership and the withdrawal cards rescinded.
Complaint for bad faith bargaining dismissed; employer's refusal to increase wages constituted hard bargaining.
The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer violated the duty to bargain in good faith under section 14 of the Labour Relations Act by engaging in surface bargaining.
The union argued that the employer's refusal to offer wage increases or agree to union security, combined with pre-negotiation anti-union conduct, demonstrated an intention to avoid reaching a collective agreement.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer engaged in hard bargaining rather than surface bargaining.
The Board noted that the employer provided financial justification for its wage position and that the union's ongoing boycott of the employer's restaurant contributed to the bargaining impasse.
