Employment and Labour Law

The applicant trade union applied for a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Trans-Nation Incorporated and Valentine Enterprises Contracting constituted one employer.

While the Board assumed the two entities were under common control or direction, it found they were not carrying on associated or related activities.

Trans-Nation was engaged in acquiring and refurbishing commercial buildings, whereas Valentine performed sewer and watermain work.

The Board concluded the businesses did not serve the same market or employ the same mode of production.

The application was dismissed, with one Board Member dissenting.

The applicant union sought certification for employees of the respondent at its Hamilton and London clinics.

The parties disputed the inclusion of two employees in the bargaining units.

The respondent argued that the Assistant Director at Hamilton should be excluded under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act or for lack of community of interest, but the Board restricted the issue to section 1(3)(b) based on prior proceedings and found she was not excluded.

The Board found that the Consultant at London spent the vast majority of her time performing sales and office functions and was therefore excluded from the bargaining unit as office and sales staff.

Certificates were issued for both bargaining units.

The complainant, a foreman, filed a complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation.

Following an incident where the complainant failed to call in an employee for overtime, the union executive organized a petition threatening an unlawful strike unless the complainant was removed from supervising jointers.

The employer conceded, resulting in the complainant losing overtime work.

The Board found the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, and in bad faith by leading an action against its own member without investigating or giving him an opportunity to respond.

The Board ordered the employer to reinstate the complainant to standby duty and the union to compensate him for lost earnings.

The applicant union applied under section 73(2) of the Labour Relations Act for consent to continue its supervision over its subordinate local.

The Board found that the local had become so torn by dissent that it could not function properly, with severe disruption occurring at meetings.

The applicant proposed a plan of action, including the temporary exclusion of three disruptive members from meetings and the appointment of a pro tem executive to transition back to local autonomy.

The Board found the plan reasonable and granted consent to continue supervision until February 28, 1981, conditional upon the applicant fulfilling its undertakings.

The complainant union alleged that the employer dismissed a probationary employee because of her activities as a union steward, contrary to The Labour Relations Act.

The employer argued the Board should defer to grievance arbitration under the collective agreement.

The Board refused to defer, noting the employee's probationary status might preclude arbitration and the dispute arose under a first collective agreement.

On the merits, the Board found the employer failed to prove the dismissal was untainted by anti-union animus, given the employee's excellent performance and the timing of her dismissal immediately following her union activities.

The Board ordered reinstatement with full compensation and directed the employer to post a notice.

The complainant, a laid-off employee, filed a complaint alleging the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union's business agent failed to inform the complainant that his grievance regarding a layoff out of seniority had been denied by the employer, and knowingly misrepresented to the complainant and the union membership that the grievance was still being processed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the business agent's conduct was arbitrary and in bad faith, depriving the complainant of the opportunity to pursue his grievance to arbitration.

The Board declared that the union breached the Act and directed the parties to agree on compensation.

The applicant employee association applied for certification as the exclusive bargaining agent for the respondent's employees.

The Board found that managerial personnel had been actively involved in the organization from its inception, were current members, and that the employer had lent support to the preparation and solicitation of membership evidence.

Consequently, the Board held that the applicant was not a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act and dismissed the application.

The complainant filed a complaint under Section 79 of the Labour Relations Act against her employer, alleging she was improperly demoted and suspended for three days without pay.

The complaint did not allege any violation of the Act, such as demotion for trade union activity, nor did it allege the union failed to adequately represent her.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing pursuant to Rule 46 of its Rules of Procedure, finding that the complaint failed to make out a prima facie case for the remedy requested because a demotion without just cause does not by itself contravene the Act.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of faculty and professional librarians at Trent University.

The Board previously certified the applicant on an interim basis and appointed an Examiner to inquire into the duties of 'College Heads'.

After reviewing the Examiner's report, the Board determined that College Heads exercise significant managerial functions, particularly regarding the supervision and administration of support staff, which occupies half of their time.

Consequently, the Board held that College Heads are excluded from the bargaining unit under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act and issued a formal certificate.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of the respondent at clinics in Hamilton, Burlington, and London.

The Board found the applicant established its status as a trade union, dismissing objections regarding the sequence of its founding meeting and undated membership cards.

The Board rejected the applicant's request for a single combined bargaining unit covering all three municipalities, finding insufficient community of interest and no interchange of employees, and instead determined that three separate units were appropriate.

The Board granted a certificate for the Burlington unit and an interim certificate for the Hamilton unit pending the resolution of a disputed managerial exclusion, while appointing a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into disputed classifications at the London clinic.

The applicant union filed two applications for certification.

A preliminary issue arose regarding a Form 8 declaration concerning membership documents, which was signed by the union organizer's secretary on her behalf.

Evidence revealed that the organizer failed to make the necessary inquiries required by Form 8 for membership cards left at her office in her absence.

Because the Board relies heavily on the Form 8 declaration to accept hearsay membership evidence, the failure to make proper inquiries rendered the declarations unreliable.

Without substantiated membership evidence, both applications for certification were dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification for employees of a mushroom farm.

The respondent employer argued that the employees were 'employed in agriculture' and thus excluded from The Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that although the mushroom farm operated much like a manufacturing facility with a highly controlled environment and factory-like conditions, the fundamental process was the natural growing of a crop.

Therefore, the employees were engaged in agriculture and excluded from the Act.

The application for certification was dismissed.

The complainant, a residential member of the respondent union, alleged that the union violated its duty of fair representation by giving priority to commercial members for referrals to commercial jobs.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union's practice of distinguishing between members who had passed its internal entrance examination (commercial members) and those who had not (residential members) was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The complaint was dismissed.

During a union certification process, a dispute arose regarding the eligibility of four employees to cast ballots in a representation vote.

The union argued that the 'seven week rule' should be applied to determine full-time or part-time status on both the date the vote was ordered and the date it was taken, while the employer argued it should only be applied as of the application date.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the seven week rule must be applied on both the date the vote was ordered and the date it was taken to ensure the vote reflects the wishes of employees with a direct interest.

The Board also dismissed a complaint regarding the Returning Officer temporarily closing the poll and securing the ballot box to seek instructions.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of food service employees.

The parties disputed the geographic scope of the unit.

The union requested a municipal description, while the employer requested a description limited to the specific client location (General Motors plants).

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that, consistent with its normal practice where an employer has only one location in a municipality, the bargaining unit should be defined by reference to the municipality to protect the stability of bargaining rights.

A dissenting member would have restricted the unit to the client location.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing it was not bound by any collective agreement with the applicant.

The Board found that in November 1974, the respondent's site supervisor signed a collective agreement with the union.

Although the supervisor lacked actual authority to bind the respondent, he had apparent authority.

Furthermore, the respondent's subsequent conduct over three years—hiring union carpenters, paying union wages, and making required remittances—constituted ratification of the agreement.

The Board concluded the respondent was bound by the provincial collective agreement and remained seized of the grievance.

The complainant alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 60 of the Act.

Following a newspaper report about a hospital error, union officials, acting on unfounded rumours that the complainant leaked the information, organized a meeting and signed a petition demanding his dismissal under threat of an unlawful work stoppage.

The complainant was subsequently discharged.

The Board found that the union officials' actions in demanding his discharge without investigation constituted arbitrary conduct in violation of section 60.

However, the union's later decision not to seek judicial review of an arbitration award upholding the discharge was found not to violate the Act.

The union was ordered to compensate the complainant for lost earnings up to the date of the arbitration award.

The employer applied to the Board to resolve a jurisdictional dispute between the photoengravers' union and the sterotypers' union regarding the assignment of work for a new direct plastic plate printing process.

The employer had assigned the entire process to the sterotypers, contrary to a 1977 agreement that split the work between the two unions.

The Board determined that the work should be divided according to the 1977 agreement, assigning the operation of the camera and production of the negative to the photoengravers, and the plate-making to the sterotypers.

The Board directed that the sterotypers' collective agreement be amended accordingly.

The applicant union applied for certification for a unit of employees at VS Services Ltd. The Board found the applicant to be a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, noting its history following a merger.

The parties agreed to a bargaining unit that excluded part-time employees and students.

The majority of the Board accepted this agreement and ordered a certificate to issue.

Board Member Hodges dissented, arguing that the Board's policy should not automatically exclude part-time employees and students when there is no history of employing them, and would have rejected the parties' agreement to exclude those categories.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent contractor violated a provincial agreement by contracting out work to a firm employing members of an intervening union.

The respondent and intervener argued the work fell within the residential sector, while the applicant claimed it was in the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector.

The Board determined that the sector issue under section 135 of the Act should be resolved prior to considering the merits of the grievance or the intervener's jurisdictional dispute complaint.