Employment and Labour Law

The applicant union applied for certification to represent owner/operators of trucks engaged by the respondent construction companies.

The central issue was whether these owner/operators were 'dependent contractors' under the Labour Relations Act or independent contractors.

The Board examined the economic relationship between the owner/operators and the respondents, noting that the owner/operators worked for many different companies, derived only a small percentage of their income from the respondents, owned their own vehicles, and exhibited entrepreneurial initiative.

The Board concluded that the owner/operators were not in a position of economic dependence on the respondents and were therefore independent contractors.

The applications for certification were dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a unit of cement masons and construction labourers employed by the respondent.

The intervener challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that under Bill 22, bargaining rights were vested in designated employee bargaining agencies and provincial agreements were binding.

The Board dismissed the jurisdictional challenge, distinguishing between the acquisition of bargaining rights and the organization of bargaining rights at the provincial level for collective bargaining.

Finding that the applicant had the requisite membership support and that the intervener lacked bargaining rights for the affected employees, the Board granted the application and issued a certificate.

In a certification application, the Board held a hearing to determine whether a Labour Relations Officer should inquire into the duties of persons classified as drillers and rock truck drivers.

The applicant union argued that drillers are labourers and rock truck drivers are teamsters, and thus neither fall within the operating engineers' jurisdiction.

The respondent employer argued that both classifications are included in its local collective agreement with the applicant.

The Board ruled that drillers are construction labourers and directed the Officer not to inquire into their duties.

However, the Board found the employer's apprehension regarding rock truck drivers valid and directed the Officer to report on their duties, noting the employer's undertaking to proceed via an agreed statement of fact.

The applicant union applied for certification and a representation vote was held.

The vote resulted in ten ballots for the applicant and nine against, with one segregated ballot cast by an employee whose name was not on the voting list.

A labour relations officer determined the employee was in the bargaining unit.

However, because counting the single segregated ballot would reveal how the employee voted, the Board directed that a new representation vote be taken to protect the secrecy of the ballot.

The applicant filed an application for a declaration that the respondent union no longer represented the part-time employees.

A similar application had been dismissed by the Board less than a month prior.

The Board applied the Trinidad Leaseholds principle, balancing the employees' right to test the union's support against the need for stability in collective bargaining.

Finding no special circumstances, the Board exercised its discretion under section 92(2)(i) of the Act to refuse to entertain the successive application, allowing the union a reasonable opportunity to pursue collective bargaining.

The applicant union applied for a declaration under section 1(4) and section 55 of the Labour Relations Act that Devon Studio and Walkerville Printing Company Limited were related employers and bound by a collective agreement.

The Board found that the two entities were under common control and direction and constituted a single employer.

The Board further held that a memorandum of agreement signed by the employer effectively bound it to a joint collective agreement negotiated subsequently.

The Board declared the entities to be a single employer bound by the collective agreement, with retroactive compensation owed to employees.

The complainant sought compensation following an arbitration award that reinstated him without compensation, alleging a conflict of interest by the union's counsel.

At the hearing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the complainant's counsel requested an adjournment because the complainant was allegedly out of the jurisdiction.

The respondent and intervener opposed the adjournment, noting the complainant had been in Toronto just days prior.

The Board denied the adjournment request due to lack of direct knowledge by counsel and short notice.

As no evidence or representations were made regarding the compensation claim, the request for relief was dismissed.

The applicants, employees of two related companies, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union had recently obtained a related employer declaration sweeping the applicants into the bargaining unit.

The union argued the Board should exercise its discretion to bar the termination application and challenged the voluntariness of the employees' petition.

The Board held it lacked authority to impose a bar analogous to a sale of business scenario and found the employees' opposition to the union was voluntary.

A representation vote was directed.

The complainant union alleged that the employer terminated six employees contrary to the Labour Relations Act after they engaged in union organizing.

The employer claimed the terminations were the result of a prior business decision to contract out the work.

The union argued that findings of fact from a prior dismissed unlawful lockout application were res judicata.

The Board held that the prior findings were not binding because they were not necessary to the ultimate dismissal of that application.

However, on the evidence, the Board found that the decision to contract out was crystallized only after the employer learned of the union activity, and was therefore motivated at least in part by anti-union animus.

The Board ordered the employees reinstated with compensation.

The applicant union applied under sections 2 and 4 of The Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act following the transfer of two sewage treatment plants from the Crown to the City of Timmins.

The applicant, which represented the City's outside workers, argued that the transferred employees should be accreted to its existing bargaining unit.

The Board found that there was no intermingling between the transferred employees and the City's existing employees.

Emphasizing that the purpose of the successor rights legislation is to preserve rather than extinguish bargaining rights, the Board declined to alter the bargaining structure.

The Board declared the City a successor employer and affirmed that the intervener union continued to represent the transferred employees.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a unit of employees of the respondent municipality.

The central issue was whether employees working at the Lakeview Cemetery and the Meaford and St. Vincent Community Centre were employees of the municipality.

The Board found that the Board of Park Management, which manages the cemetery, is a separate corporate entity under The Public Parks Act, and thus its employees are not employees of the municipality.

Conversely, the Board determined that the Committee of Management for the community centre, established under The Community Recreation Centres Act, has no separate legal status as an employer.

Consequently, the employees at the community centre are employees of the municipality.

The respondent was directed to file an amended list of bargaining unit employees including those at the community centre.

Five employees filed a complaint alleging that the employer college violated section 55(1) of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act by implementing retroactive wage increases before a formal collective agreement was signed, while a complaint about the union's ratification vote was pending.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, holding that section 55(1) is designed to protect the bargaining rights of the trade union, which is the exclusive bargaining agent.

Consequently, individual employees lack standing to bring such a complaint without the union's consent.

The applicant union alleged that the employer's decision to terminate six maintenance employees and contract out their work constituted an unlawful lock-out.

The employer issued the termination notices shortly after learning the employees had joined the union.

The Board found that while the employer's actions were motivated by anti-union sentiment and likely constituted an unfair labour practice, they did not meet the statutory definition of a lock-out.

Because the decision to terminate was irrevocable and not designed to compel or induce employees to alter their behavior or agree to changes in working conditions, the application for a lock-out declaration was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification to displace the intervener union and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The intervener opposed the application, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to order a vote before determining the applicant's trade union status, and that the applicant was not a valid trade union due to an allegedly invalid merger.

The Board held it had jurisdiction under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act to order a pre-hearing vote and defer the status issue.

The Board further found that the applicant was a valid trade union within the meaning of section 1(1)(n) of the Act, as the employees had taken the proper steps to form the organization, regardless of the validity of the parent unions' merger.

The Board directed the ballots to be unsealed and counted.

The applicant hospital sought a determination under section 95(2) of the Labour Relations Act as to whether a registered nurse exercised managerial functions and was therefore excluded from the definition of 'employee'.

The nurse served as In-Service Co-ordinator, Staff Health Nurse, and Infection Control Officer.

The Board found that she did not supervise employees, make effective recommendations regarding employment conditions, or exercise independent decision-making authority in policy matters.

The Board concluded that her duties reflected her professional training rather than managerial authority, and declared her an employee for the purposes of the Act.

The union applied for certification of employees at Family Services of Hamilton-Wentworth Inc. The parties disputed whether three employees who also served on the employer's Board of Directors should be excluded from the bargaining unit under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act for exercising managerial functions or acting in a confidential capacity.

The Board found that while the Board of Directors collectively exercises managerial functions, the employee-directors do not exercise independent managerial authority in their secondary role as directors, nor do they have regular, material involvement in confidential labour relations matters.

The Board concluded that the employee-directors are properly included in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of operating engineers employed by the respondent construction company.

The parties disputed whether four off-site employees should be included in the bargaining unit for the purpose of the count.

The Board found that three of the employees were commonly associated in their work with on-site employees and included them in the count.

The fourth employee was classified as a cement truck driver and excluded.

As the union had unchallenged evidence of membership for more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit, the Board granted the application for certification without a representation vote.

The applicant association applied for certification as a trade union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer had continuously interfered with the affairs of the association, including referring the association to a management consultant, discussing the legality of the association and the right to strike, and allowing organizational meetings on paid time.

Consequently, the Board held that the applicant was not a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1)(n) of the Labour Relations Act and that certification was prohibited under section 12 due to employer participation and support.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of a business occurred when the respondent acquired a lease for a retail food store previously operated by Dominion Stores Limited.

The premises had been closed and vacant for over 11 months before the respondent occupied them.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the transfer of the lease constituted a 'sale' within the extended meaning of the Act, it did not amount to a continuation of Dominion's business.

As there was no continuation of the predecessor's business, the application for successor rights was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer indicated a planned build-up of the workforce from 9 to 35 employees.

The Board applied its build-up principles, noting that 9 employees did not constitute a substantial and representative segment of the projected workforce.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be taken among the employees presently working in the bargaining unit, which had since grown to 35 employees.