Employment and Labour Law

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.

The union applied for certification for two bargaining units.

The union demonstrated membership support in excess of 55% for both units.

However, a group of employees filed statements of desire (petitions) opposing the certification, which included signatures from employees who had previously signed union membership cards.

The Board found that the employer had held a meeting and posted newspaper clippings suggesting that unionization would lead to layoffs and plant closures.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the petitions did not represent a voluntary change of heart, as employees were motivated by a perceived threat to their job security.

The Board gave no weight to the petitions and granted certification for both bargaining units without a representation vote.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied for certification as the bargaining agent for registered and graduate nurses employed by the Regional Municipality of Halton at Halton Centennial Manor.

The respondent argued the nurses exercised managerial functions and were excluded from collective bargaining under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the nurses did not exercise effective control or authority over support staff in labour relations matters, nor did they make effective recommendations affecting employment conditions.

The Board concluded the nurses were employees under the Act and granted the certification.

The applicants sought a cease and desist direction under section 123 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent unions and their officials called, authorized, or encouraged an unlawful strike at a mine reactivation project.

The Board found that while an unlawful strike did occur, the evidence did not establish that the respondents called, authorized, or encouraged it.

In fact, the union official attempted to avert the strike and sought to have members work in compliance with the collective agreement.

The application was dismissed against all respondents.

The complainant trade union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the respondent employer violated section 14 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to bargain in good faith.

The parties had previously signed a memorandum of settlement, but the employer refused to execute the formal collective agreement, arguing it had not been properly ratified by all employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board found that the recent legislative amendment requiring all employees to participate in a ratification vote was not in effect at the time of the union's ratification.

The Board declared the employer violated section 14, directed it to execute the collective agreement, and ordered damages.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees at the respondent's home for the aged.

A group of employees filed a petition in opposition.

The union sought certification without a vote under section 7a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the employer's unfair labour practices, including statements by the Director of Nursing and anti-union inquiries during hiring interviews, prevented the true wishes of the employees from being ascertained.

The Board found that the employer violated the Act by interrogating prospective employees about their union views, but concluded that a representation vote could still be held.

The Board ordered the employer to cease and desist from such practices, post a remedial notice, and directed that a representation vote be taken.

One Board member dissented, finding that the employer's conduct warranted automatic certification.

The complainant employer bargaining agency alleged that the respondent union violated section 134a(1) of the Labour Relations Act by failing to authorize a strike for all employees in the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector of the construction industry, specifically by continuing to supply workers for maintenance work.

The Board examined whether the work performed under various maintenance agreements constituted construction work or maintenance work.

The Board found that while most of the work was maintenance and thus outside the ICI sector, some minor new construction work was performed in violation of the Act.

However, given the union's reasonable efforts to comply and the complainant's members' inconsistent conduct, the Board declined to issue a cease and desist order and dismissed the complaint.

The employer and the union jointly applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for consent to the early termination of their collective agreements to facilitate renegotiation and prevent plant closure.

An employee objected based on dissatisfaction with the proposed new terms.

The Board granted consent, noting that the statutory restriction on early termination is intended to protect the open period for representation challenges, and there was no evidence that the objector or any other employee sought to challenge the union's bargaining rights.

The applicant trade union applied under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that following the sale of a business to the respondent, the respondent intermingled employees from its pre-existing business with those of the purchased business.

The respondent and an intervening union argued that no intermingling occurred and that the applicant had abandoned its bargaining rights when the original plant closed.

The Board found that the applicant had not abandoned its bargaining rights and that an intermingling of employees had occurred when the respondent transferred operations and integrated them with the purchased business.

Given the representation levels of the competing unions, the Board ordered a representation vote for the full-time employees to determine their bargaining agent, while excluding part-time employees who were previously unrepresented.

The complainant union alleged that the respondents terminated the grievor's employment in response to his initiation of a grievance under the collective agreement, contrary to section 76(2)(a) of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act.

The respondents argued that filing a grievance did not constitute the exercise of a right under the Act.

In an interim ruling, the Board held that the right to ensure compliance with a collective agreement through a grievance procedure is a fundamental lawful activity of a trade union protected by section 66 of the Act.

The Board ruled that the allegations, if proven, would constitute a violation of the Act and directed the matter to continue.

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.

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.

The union referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 82 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act to determine whether several individuals were employees included in the support staff bargaining unit.

The Board examined the duties and responsibilities of the individuals to determine if they were employed in a managerial or confidential capacity.

The Board found that the executive secretary to the Director of Plant and Services was excluded due to her confidential capacity.

The office manager and a general clerk in the Personnel department were found not to exercise sufficient managerial or confidential duties and were included in the unit.

The Divisional Directors and Assistant Divisional Directors of Continuing Education were found to exercise significant managerial functions over the continuing education program and part-time staff, and were excluded from the bargaining unit.

The applicant union alleged that the respondent employers engaged in an unlawful lock-out when they laid off eight employees who performed oil burner servicing.

The employers had merged operations due to a shrinking market and offered the employees positions as dependent contractors, which they refused.

The Board found that the employers' decision was based on commercial considerations to reduce overhead and streamline operations, rather than a motive to compel or induce the employees to refrain from exercising their rights under the Labour Relations Act.

Consequently, the Board held that the layoffs did not constitute a lock-out and dismissed the application.

The complainant union alleged that the employer discharged seven employees, including a foreman, contrary to the Labour Relations Act following an unsuccessful certification campaign.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board should defer to arbitration under the collective agreement with the incumbent union.

The Board declined to defer, finding the allegations of collusion between the employer and incumbent union went beyond the administration of the collective agreement.

On the merits, the Board dismissed the complaint, accepting the employer's evidence that the decision to close the pipe shop and contract out the work was made for legitimate business reasons to achieve cost savings, and was not motivated by anti-union animus.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the respondent was a successor employer to the predecessor company under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively, that they were related employers under section 1(4).

The predecessor's business had been placed in receivership, and the respondent subsequently leased the premises, purchased equipment, hired former employees, and temporarily manufactured the predecessor's product line under the predecessor's trade name before transitioning to safety footwear.

The Board found that a sale of a business had occurred within the meaning of section 55.

The Board declined to terminate the union's bargaining rights under section 55(5), finding that the change from casual to safety footwear did not constitute a substantial change in the character of the business.

The section 1(4) application was dismissed.

The applicant union sought declarations under sections 1(4) and 55 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board dismissed the section 1(4) application regarding Spanway Building Systems Ltd. and Amorico Associates Ltd., finding they were not related businesses, though a corporate name change did not affect existing bargaining rights.

Regarding section 55, the Board found that a sale of a business occurred when Spanway Buildings Limited acquired the assets, premises, and exclusive franchise of Spanway Building Systems Ltd. Consequently, Spanway Buildings Limited was declared a successor employer bound by the provincial collective agreement.

The applicant union alleged that there was a transfer of a business from the predecessor company to the successor company under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively that they were related employers under section 1(4).

The predecessor company had ceased operations due to financial difficulties, and its key employees formed a new company, purchasing about two-thirds of the predecessor's equipment and operating from the same location.

The Board found that the transfer of assets, along with the continuation of the same management, location, and type of work, constituted a sale of part of the business under section 55.

The successor company was therefore bound by the predecessor's collective agreements.

The section 1(4) application was dismissed as unnecessary.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated section 56 of the Labour Relations Act by withholding union dues following an illegal strike.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the Board should defer to a board of arbitration already established to hear a related grievance, and that the union delayed in filing the complaint.

The Board declined to defer to arbitration, finding the complaint extended beyond the interpretation of the collective agreement and involved allegations of interference with the union's capacity to act as bargaining agent.

The Board also dismissed the delay objection and directed the matter to proceed on the merits.

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.