Employment and Labour Law

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of the respondent security company.

The respondent argued that all its employees were security guards and, under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act, could not be included in a bargaining unit with non-guards.

The Board found that by-law enforcement officers and airport security guards did not protect the property of an employer and were therefore not guards within the meaning of section 11.

The Board determined that a bargaining unit excluding actual guards was appropriate and issued a certificate to the applicant.

The applicant, a supplier of ready-mix concrete, sought relief under sections 82 and 123 of the Labour Relations Act based on statements by union officials that a picket line would be set up at a construction site.

The Board found that the applicant was not an employer in the construction industry but could seek relief under section 82.

However, because no picket line was actually established, no unlawful strike occurred, and the applicant suffered no harm, the Board concluded the application was premature.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant union applied under section 95(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether certain persons were members of the bargaining unit according to the collective agreement.

The respondent employer confirmed it did not dispute that the contested persons were employees for the purposes of the Act.

The Board held that its jurisdiction under section 95(2) is limited to determining whether a person is an employee under the Act, not whether they are covered by a specific collective agreement.

As the only issue was the interpretation of the collective agreement's scope clause, the Board dismissed the application, noting the matter was properly for private arbitration.

The union referred a grievance to arbitration alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by laying off senior elevator mechanics while retaining two junior mechanics during a shortage of work.

The employer argued that the retained junior mechanics possessed specialized skills (adjusting and contract service on specific equipment) that the senior mechanics lacked.

The Board found that the collective agreement's seniority clause was qualified by a requirement that retained mechanics have the necessary skill and ability to do the remaining work.

The Board concluded that the employer's assessment of skill and ability was reasonable, honest, and unbiased, and dismissed the grievance.

The applicant union sought certification for employees at the respondent's soft drink plant.

The respondent employer argued the application was tainted because a foreman participated in the union's membership campaign.

The Board found the foreman acted contrary to the employer's interests and did not exert undue influence, so the application was not barred by section 12 of the Labour Relations Act.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing the union, sponsored by a salesman.

The Board found the salesman was not managerial but was perceived as close to management and had threatened employees' job security while circulating the petition.

Consequently, the Board gave no weight to the petition and granted outright certification based on the union's membership evidence.

The applicant union brought an application under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent was the successor employer of a tavern business.

The respondent had previously sold the business to a numbered company but resumed management and control after the purchaser defaulted on its payments.

The Board held that the resumption of control constituted a 'sale' within the meaning of section 55, as it fell within the broad definition of 'any other manner of disposition'.

The Board declared the respondent bound by the collective agreement.

The Board also declined to award costs against the respondent for an earlier adjournment, noting its general practice against awarding costs as a penalty.

In an application for certification, the Board directed a representation vote.

The intervener union requested the job site locations of the employees to campaign, but the respondent employer refused, offering instead to allow meetings at its premises.

The Board held that unions are entitled to know job site locations to verify the identity and work of employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board directed the respondent to provide the job site locations, failing which the Registrar would release the employees' names and addresses.

The applicants referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent was bound by a provincial agreement.

The respondent denied being bound, arguing a prior working agreement did not create bargaining rights.

The applicants argued this issue was res judicata due to prior Board decisions.

The Board held that a principle analogous to res judicata applies to its proceedings and precluded the respondent from relitigating the effect of the working agreement, directing the matter to be re-listed for hearing on the merits.

The applicant employer bargaining agency applied for relief under section 123 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent trade union and its business manager called an unlawful strike.

The strike occurred in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry.

The Board found that the respondents violated section 134a(1) of the Act by engaging in a selective strike when not all affiliated bargaining agents had called or authorized a strike.

The Board issued a cease and desist direction against the respondents.

The complainant union alleged that the grievor was discharged for his union organizing activities, contrary to the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer claimed the discharge was due to poor productivity and a bad attitude.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving that the termination was free from anti-union animus.

The Board noted the timing of the discharge, the lack of prior discipline, and inconsistencies in management's evidence.

The Board ordered the grievor reinstated with full compensation.

In an application for certification, a representation vote was held.

The intervener challenged the vote, arguing it lacked proper notice and that the two employees who voted were not performing bargaining unit work.

The Board found that the intervener was the author of its own misfortune regarding notice by walking out of a meeting.

However, the Board agreed that the two employees were not eligible to vote because they were performing clean-up and painting work, not insulation work, on the date of the vote.

The Board set aside the vote and ordered a new representation vote to be held when the respondent employs persons in the bargaining unit.

The union applied for certification of employees working in the respondent's radio paging, mobile communication, and telephone answering services.

The respondent objected on the basis that its business fell under federal jurisdiction as a radio communication undertaking.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed constitutional jurisprudence, including the Radio Reference case, and concluded that radio communication by Hertzian waves falls under exclusive federal jurisdiction, even where the signals are emitted and received entirely within a single province.

Finding that the telephone answering service was not severable from the radio communication services, the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for employees of the respondent in Metropolitan Toronto.

The parties disputed the geographic scope of the bargaining unit, with the respondent seeking to restrict it to a single location.

The Board applied its general practice of describing bargaining units on a municipality-wide basis, as all employees in the included classifications worked at one location.

The Board excluded students employed during the school vacation period but included part-time employees.

A Labour Relations Officer was appointed to inquire into the duties of dispatchers and call takers.

The Board granted interim certification pending the final resolution of the bargaining unit composition.

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 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.

The complainants filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the respondent taxi company unlawfully terminated their relationship.

As a preliminary matter, the respondent argued the complainant owner-operator was an independent contractor, not an employee.

The Board applied the dependent contractor test under the Labour Relations Act, finding the complainant was economically dependent on the respondent's dispatch service and subject to significant control over his work.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, concluding the complainant was a dependent contractor and therefore an employee entitled to the Act's protection.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer violated the provincial agreement by hiring non-union construction labourers.

The Board previously found the employer in breach and directed the parties to determine compensation.

Following an audit, the union claimed compensation for lost wages, unpaid trust fund contributions, and legal fees.

The employer argued compensation should be limited to lost union dues.

The Board rejected the employer's argument, finding the union entitled to claim lost wages and trust fund contributions on behalf of its members who were deprived of work.

The Board ordered the employer to pay $8,916.91 in compensation but denied the claim for legal costs.

The complainant union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 81 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that a grievance filed by a rival union against a general contractor regarding a subcontracting clause constituted a demand for work assignment.

The Board dismissed the complaint, holding that the mere filing of a grievance against a general contractor does not amount to requiring an employer to assign particular work to persons in a particular trade union within the meaning of section 81(1).

The Board reviewed the legislative history and jurisprudence, concluding that the general contractor is not the 'employer' making the work assignment in this context.

The applicant union applied for certification to displace the intervener union as the bargaining agent for insulation mechanics employed by the respondent.

The intervener opposed the application, alleging under section 12 of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent employer had unlawfully hired employees to support the applicant and defeat the intervener's bargaining rights.

The Board found no evidence of a collusive arrangement or employer support, dismissing the section 12 allegations.

As the applicant demonstrated sufficient membership support, the Board ordered a representation vote.

The applicant union applied to displace the incumbent union as the bargaining agent for the plant employees of the respondent.

The employer and incumbent union argued the application should be for a composite unit of plant and office employees, and that the application was untimely due to the appointment of a Conciliation Officer.

The Board held that the existing separate plant unit was appropriate for collective bargaining.

The Board further held that the application was timely because it was made during the 'open period' of the collective agreement, and the appointment of a Conciliation Officer cannot close the open period before its expiry.

Following a representation vote in favour of the applicant, the Board certified the applicant and terminated the incumbent's bargaining rights.