Employment and Labour Law

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) brought a Charter challenge alleging that Sections 2(1) and 5 of the Agricultural Employees Protection Act (AEPA) violated the freedom of association rights of agricultural workers at a medical marijuana facility under Section 2(d) of the Charter.

The Tribunal found that the AEPA provides a meaningful process of collective bargaining, including employee choice, independence, and a duty of good faith.

The Tribunal concluded that the absence of a statutory right to strike or a Wagner Act model of collective bargaining did not render the AEPA unconstitutional.

The Charter challenge was dismissed.

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) and several individual complainants filed a complaint against MedReleaf Corp. under the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, 2002 (AEPA).

The complainants alleged that MedReleaf failed to provide the union a reasonable opportunity to make representations and thwarted attempts to organize through threats, intimidation, and coercion.

The Tribunal found that MedReleaf did not violate the AEPA.

MedReleaf had reasonably requested confirmation of the union's representational status, which the union refused to provide.

Furthermore, MedReleaf discharged its reverse onus under the AEPA, proving that it did not engage in an anti-union campaign, did not use external agents to intimidate employees, and did not unlawfully discipline or dismiss employees.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the individual respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The applicant alleged that the individual respondents made discriminating and degrading comments about her mental health.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and found that the conduct of the individual respondents was a central issue in the case.

The Tribunal concluded it would not be appropriate to remove the individual respondents at this stage, as a remedy could be sought against them directly if the harassment allegations were substantiated.

The request was denied.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of office, clerical, technical employees, teacher aides, and cafeteria aides.

The employer objected to the proposed unit, arguing that permanent part-time employees should be included, casual/temporary employees excluded, and secretaries to principals excluded due to managerial or confidential duties.

The Board held that permanent part-time employees do not share a community of interest with full-time employees and excluded them, while including casual/temporary full-time employees.

The Board also found that secretaries to principals have regular and material involvement in confidential labour relations matters and excluded them under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board directed the counting of the ballots.

The applicant, a working foreman, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union argued the statement of desire was involuntary because the applicant exercised supervisory functions, leading employees to perceive management involvement.

The Board found no actual management involvement and concluded that employees would likely view the applicant as acting in his own self-interest rather than on behalf of management.

The Board ordered a representation vote.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the application, finding the petition involuntary due to the applicant's perceived managerial authority.

The applicant union alleged that a 'sale of a business' occurred under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act when the respondent, Beef Terminal (1979) Limited, leased the premises and equipment of the predecessor, Beef Terminal.

The predecessor operated a comprehensive meat packing business, while the respondent operated a custom slaughterhouse using the same facilities and many of the same employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the respondent acquired a coherent and severable part of the predecessor's business.

The Board concluded there was no substantial change in the character of the business to justify terminating bargaining rights under section 55(5).

The union's bargaining rights were preserved, but a related employer application under section 1(4) was dismissed.

One Board Member dissented, arguing the business character had substantially changed.

The complainant alleged he was discharged contrary to section 24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after raising concerns about frayed electrical cables on vacuum cleaners.

The Board found that the complainant's communications with management primarily focused on criticizing his supervisor's competence rather than raising specific safety hazards.

The Board concluded the discharge was motivated by the complainant's insubordinate conduct and his inappropriate method of communicating complaints via a client's log book, which embarrassed the employer, rather than any attempt to enforce the Act.

The complaint was dismissed.

The respondent employer sought reconsideration of a decision certifying the applicant union, alleging that the union's membership evidence was obtained with the support of management officials, contrary to sections 12 and 56 of the Labour Relations Act.

The general manager had initiated the organizing campaign and directed supervisors to assist.

The union subsequently re-signed employees outside the plant to cure the defect.

The Board found that the general manager acted on his own and not in the employer's interests, so the section 12 bar did not apply.

However, given the circumstances of the re-signing and the presence of management, the Board doubted the true wishes of the employees.

The Board revoked the certificate and ordered a representation vote.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of dependent contractor owner/operator truck drivers who hauled aggregate from the Canada Crushed Stone quarry.

The drivers had previously worked directly for Canada Crushed Stone but were later required to operate through brokers, including A. Cupido Haulage.

The Board applied the statutory definition of 'dependent contractor' and found that despite the introduction of the brokerage system, the drivers remained economically dependent upon Canada Crushed Stone, which continued to control their day-to-day work, set their rates, and provide the bulk of their work.

The Board concluded that the drivers were dependent contractors of Canada Crushed Stone and constituted an appropriate bargaining unit.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer laid off two employees due to their union activities, contrary to the Labour Relations Act.

The employer claimed the layoffs were strictly for financial reasons and lack of flexibility.

The Board applied the reverse onus under section 79(4a) of the Act, requiring the employer to prove its actions were devoid of anti-union animus.

Because the employer failed to call key management personnel who allegedly made anti-union statements, the Board drew an adverse inference.

The Board found the employer failed to discharge its burden of proof, concluded the layoffs were tainted by anti-union motive, and ordered reinstatement with full compensation.

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging the employer discharged and laid off ten employees for their involvement in a union organizing campaign, and sought certification without a vote under section 7a of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the employer's explanations for the terminations unconvincing and concluded the actions were motivated by anti-union animus, violating section 58 of the Act.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the employees with compensation.

Furthermore, finding that the employer's unlawful conduct made it unlikely that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained through a representation vote, the Board granted automatic certification to the union.

The applicant, a council of trade unions, applied for certification in the construction industry.

The Board held a hearing to determine whether the applicant was a council of trade unions and whether its constituent locals were trade unions under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board reviewed the charters and by-laws and found that the locals were trade unions and the applicant was a council of trade unions with the appropriate authority to act as a bargaining agent.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union applied for a declaration under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent, Ajax Hydro-Electric Commission, was bound by a collective agreement previously entered into with the Hydro-Electric Commission of the Town of Ajax.

The application followed the amalgamation and restructuring of municipal hydro services under the Durham Municipal Hydro-Electric Service Act, 1979.

The Board found that a municipal amalgamation had occurred within the meaning of section 55(11) of the Labour Relations Act.

Consequently, the Board declared that the respondent became bound by the existing collective agreement and that the applicant continued to be the bargaining agent for the employees in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union was certified to represent employees at the respondent's new plant when only two employees were working.

Subsequently, two other unions intervened, arguing that the certificate was issued during a period of workforce build-up and should be reconsidered.

The Board found that a significant increase in the workforce was planned at the time of the original application, such that the two employees did not constitute a representative segment.

The Board exercised its power under section 95(1) of the Labour Relations Act to revoke the certificate and directed the taking of a representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification.

At the hearing, a group of employees sought to intervene to express opposition, and the employer requested an extension of the terminal date to allow the filing of a written statement of desire received the day prior.

The Board refused to extend the terminal date, finding the employees had sufficient time (five and one-half days) to register their opposition.

The Board also declined to direct a representation vote based on alleged opposition or post-application layoffs, and granted the certificate to the applicant.

The complainant alleged he was discharged by the respondent bus company because of his union organizing activities, contrary to the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent maintained the discharge was purely disciplinary, citing the complainant's poor work record, lateness, and failure to perform safety checks.

The Board found no evidence that the employer knew of the complainant's union activities at the time of discharge.

The complaint was dismissed as the Board concluded the termination was solely for disciplinary reasons.

The group of objectors requested the Board to reconsider its decision finding that statements of desire (petitions) opposing the union's certification were not voluntary.

The objectors argued the Board improperly relied on testimony from a witness who did not testify in the certification portion of the proceedings.

The Board determined it had jurisdiction to reconsider the matter itself without referring it to a new panel.

Upon reviewing the evidence afresh and explicitly excluding the impugned testimony, the Board concluded that the active involvement of management and the extensive petition-related activities of an employee during working hours created a perception of employer support.

The Board affirmed its original decision that the petitions were not voluntary.

Following the sale of a business and the intermingling of unionized and non-unionized employees, the Board ordered a representation vote.

The union won the vote.

The successor employer argued the vote should be set aside due to union propaganda and that, regardless of the vote, the predecessor's collective agreement should be declared no longer binding because it was unsuitable for the new operation and should not apply to non-unionized transferred employees.

The Board upheld the vote and held that under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act, the collective agreement continues in force and applies to all employees falling within the scope of the bargaining unit, including those transferred from the successor's other operations.

The employer's request to terminate the collective agreement was dismissed.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to file formal grievances regarding an unsafe working condition, a request for a job description, and a request to remove a medical work restriction.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union had successfully resolved the first two issues informally and that the failure to file a grievance for the third issue was due to the complainant's refusal to sign the grievance form prepared by the union.

The Board concluded there was no evidence of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union.

The applicant trade union was certified to represent a bargaining unit.

Subsequently, the intervener trade union applied for certification for essentially the same group of employees and sought reconsideration of the earlier certificate, arguing it was issued during a period of build-up.

Another trade union also sought to intervene.

The applicant and respondent challenged the status of both unions to intervene following the issuance of a certificate.

The Board held that a trade union representing at least one employee in the bargaining unit has the necessary degree of interest to attain party status.

As both intervening unions met this requirement, the Board granted them intervener status to seek reconsideration of the earlier decision.