Employment and Labour Law

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of carpenters employed by the respondent in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector province-wide, and in all other sectors in Grey County.

On the application date, the respondent had no employees working in the ICI sector, but had carpenters working in residential construction in Grey County.

The Board held that under section 131a(1) of the Labour Relations Act, an application can relate to the ICI sector even if no employees are working in that sector on the application date, provided the proposed bargaining unit encompasses it.

Finding that the union had the requisite membership support among the employees in the bargaining unit, the Board issued two certificates: one for the ICI sector province-wide, and one for all other sectors in Grey County.

A dissenting board member argued that the desires of carpenters working outside Grey County should have been considered before issuing a province-wide ICI certificate.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent carpenters and carpenters' apprentices employed by the respondents.

The central issue was whether two individuals who performed work on a service station owned by the respondents were employees.

The Board found that the individuals were retained as independent contractors, as they agreed to a flat sum for the work, set their own hours, and were not supervised by the respondents.

As the respondents did not employ any carpenters on the date of the application, the application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a comprehensive bargaining unit of paramedical employees at the respondent hospital.

A group of objecting professional paramedical employees argued they should be excluded from the unit, asserting a desire not to be represented by any union and citing differences between professional and technical paramedicals.

The Board, following its established policy in Stratford General Hospital, held that a single comprehensive unit of both professional and technical paramedical employees is appropriate to avoid undue fragmentation in the public hospital sector.

The objectors' request to be carved out was dismissed, and the Board directed that the segregated ballots be counted.

During a union certification representation vote, a segregated ballot was inadvertently opened, revealing an employee's choice.

The employee, who was related to management, subsequently faced pressure from the employer and requested a new vote.

The union argued that the employer's knowledge of the employee's support would impede a free second vote and requested certification under section 7a of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered a second representation vote, emphasizing the paramount importance of the secret ballot and finding that the isolated family flare-up did not justify certification without a vote.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent hotel violated sections 58 and 70 of the Labour Relations Act by reprimanding one employee, discharging another, and altering working conditions during the statutory freeze period.

The Board dismissed the section 58 complaints, finding no evidence of anti-union animus in the employer's disciplinary actions.

The Board also found that the removal of bar stools did not violate section 70, as it was part of an ongoing renovation program.

However, the Board concluded that the discharge of an employee for purchasing U.S. funds violated section 70, as this practice was an established employee privilege that could not be unilaterally abrogated during the freeze period.

The discharged employee was ordered reinstated with compensation.

The respondent employer requested that the Board reconsider its 1978 decision certifying the applicant union without a hearing.

The employer argued that the work performed by the employees (stripping a gravel pit) was not work in the construction industry.

The Board dismissed the request, noting that the employer had the opportunity to object or request a hearing at the time of the original application but chose not to do so.

The Board emphasized the need for certainty and finality in its decisions and declined to exercise its discretion to reconsider.

The complainant, who was discharged for failing to return to work on time after an extended vacation, alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to take his discharge grievance to arbitration.

The union's grievance committee and executive board had reviewed the case and concluded it lacked merit due to credibility issues and the strict language of the collective agreement.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union had carefully considered the grievance and that its decision was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

An alleged innocent misrepresentation by a shop steward that caused the complainant to miss a union meeting did not constitute a breach of the Act.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of field employees engaged in surveying operations.

The union filed membership evidence for both employees in the unit.

A statement of desire opposing the union was subsequently filed, signed by one bargaining unit employee and a supervisory party chief.

The Board found that the bargaining unit employee's decision to sign the statement was likely influenced by the supervisory party chief and concerns that management would become aware of his choice.

Consequently, the Board declined to direct a representation vote and issued a certificate to the applicant union.

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

At the hearing, the employer requested an adjournment pending the disposition of a request for reconsideration of a prior certification case involving the employer.

The majority of the Board granted the adjournment, noting that the reconsideration request went to the Board's jurisdiction to hear the grievance referral.

Board Member Ballentine dissented, arguing that the adjournment was contrary to the Board's policy of providing speedy resolutions for construction industry grievances and that the hearing should have proceeded on the merits.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint regarding the discharge of a key union organizer.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing the union.

The Board found the petition was not proven to be voluntary due to the presence of a management member during its signing, and certified the union without a vote.

Regarding the discharge, the Board found the employer proved the employee was fired for an unauthorized after-hours entry onto company property, not for his union activities.

The unfair labour practice complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a machine repairman, alleged that his employer engaged in a campaign of harassment and improper discipline in reprisal for his filing of a health and safety complaint under The Employees' Health and Safety Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the complainant's initial refusal to work was not based on a reasonable belief that the workplace was unsafe, but rather on a dispute over which hospital he would be sent to if injured.

The Board concluded that the employer's subsequent disciplinary actions and insistence that the complainant wear mandatory hearing protection were justified by the complainant's flagrant insubordination, erratic attendance, and refusal to comply with safety rules.

The complaint was dismissed as being entirely without merit.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of objecting employees sought to extend the terminal date to admit two late handwritten statements of objection.

The Board declined to extend the terminal date, finding that the employees had ample opportunity to read the posted notices and file their objections in a timely manner.

As the union had the requisite membership support on the terminal date, the Board granted certification without a representation vote.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer failed to bargain in good faith during negotiations for a first collective agreement, specifically regarding the issue of union security.

The employer took a firm position against compulsory dues check-off, offering only voluntary check-off.

The Board found that the employer had engaged in rational and informed discussion and was entitled to take a firm position on union security.

The complaint was dismissed, with one Board member dissenting on the grounds that the employer's rigid stance on union security constituted surface bargaining.

The complainant, a journeyman millwright, was discharged by the company following a conveyor breakdown.

The union processed his grievance through several steps and ultimately negotiated a conditional reinstatement without loss of seniority, which the complainant accepted but later challenged.

The complainant alleged the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act by acting arbitrarily, delaying the process, and failing to obtain compensation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union officials made a reasoned decision based on the merits of the grievance and their past experience, and did not act in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith during negotiations for a first collective agreement.

The union argued the employer's wage offer and refusal to agree to a Rand formula check-off were designed to prevent ratification.

The Board found that while the employer took a firm position on union security, it was a legitimate response to the union's pressure tactics, which included suggesting a production slowdown and contacting customers.

The Board concluded the employer was engaging in hard bargaining rather than surface bargaining, and dismissed the complaint.

The Minister of Labour referred questions to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the designation of employee and employer bargaining agencies in the construction industry, following the affiliation of the Lathers' International Union with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.

The Board found that the previous separate designations for the Lathers and their corresponding employers were no longer effective in either a legal or industrial relations sense.

The Board concluded that separate designations for acoustic and drywall workers were not appropriate, and recommended that all affected parties be included within a single set of comprehensive designations to reflect the consolidation of bargaining rights and avoid jurisdictional disputes.

The applicant union applied for certification and sought certification without a vote under section 7a of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer alleged that one employee failed to pay the required $1.00 initiation fee for her membership card.

After an inquiry, the Board found that the non-pay irregularity did occur.

Applying the Webster Air Equipment principle, the Board determined that while the irregularity did not warrant total rejection of the membership evidence, it cast sufficient doubt to require the confirmatory evidence of a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held for both the full-time and part-time bargaining units.

The applicant local union applied for certification shortly after its parent national union lost a representation vote and was subjected to a six-month bar on further applications.

The respondent employer argued that the bar against the national union should also apply to the local union, alleging that the organizing campaign was so intertwined that employees would have been confused as to which entity they were voting for.

The Board held that the national and local unions are separate legal entities.

Finding that the employees were not misled or confused by the campaign materials, the Board concluded that the bar against the national union did not operate against the local union.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicants sought a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union argued the application was untimely because a conciliation officer had not been appointed.

The Board found the application was timely.

However, the Board dismissed the application because it could not be satisfied that the statement of desire was voluntary.

An employee who was reasonably perceived by other employees as having a special relationship with management was present during the origination and circulation of the statement, which tainted its voluntariness.

The applicant union sought certification under section 7a of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively a new representation vote, following a lost vote.

The union alleged employer misconduct, including a physical altercation and threats, and irregularities in the vote's conduct, notably the employer acting as his own scrutineer.

The Board found the employer's conduct did not warrant automatic certification under section 7a.

However, the Board set aside the representation vote and ordered a new one, concluding that the employer's presence as a scrutineer, combined with previous threats and the seating arrangements during the vote, made it unlikely that the ballot accurately reflected the employees' true wishes.