Employment and Labour Law

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a unit of owner-operators of tractor-trailers hauling materials from the respondent's quarry.

The Board found that the six owner-operators in question were dependent contractors and therefore employees under the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent argued that due to the seasonal nature of the work, the six individuals did not constitute a substantial and representative number of the workforce, and requested a representation vote be deferred.

The Board rejected this argument, finding that the six persons constituted a substantial and representative number of employees, and granted the certificate to the applicant.

Following a finding of liability for breaching the hiring hall provisions of a collective agreement, the respondent employer challenged the quantum of damages.

The employer argued that the union was required to identify the specific members who lost work and prove that they had attempted to mitigate their damages.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rejected this argument, holding that the union's out-of-work list established a prima facie case for damages.

The Board found that the burden shifted to the employer to lead evidence of a failure to mitigate, which it had not done.

The Board ordered the employer to pay $6,885.50 in damages to the union on behalf of its unemployed members.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of dependent contractors working as oil burner servicemen for the respondent.

The respondent argued the individuals were independent contractors.

The Board applied the statutory definition of 'dependent contractor' under section 1(1)(h) of the Labour Relations Act.

Finding that the contractors were economically dependent on the respondent and that their relationship more closely resembled that of an employee than an independent contractor, the Board concluded they were dependent contractors.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to schedule a further hearing regarding the voluntariness of statements of desire filed by some contractors.

The applicant applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The intervener, the incumbent union, argued that the applicant must first prove its status as a trade union before a vote could be directed.

The Board, following its previous jurisprudence, held that there was no reason to single out the trade union status issue for special treatment and directed the pre-hearing vote, deferring the resolution of the status issue to a subsequent hearing.

One Board Member dissented, arguing that directing a vote before status is proven misleads employees and disrupts established bargaining relationships.

The union brought applications under sections 1(4), 63, and 124 of the Labour Relations Act against George Hamers Limited and L & M Plumbing & Heating.

The Board dismissed the section 1(4) application, finding that L & M was merely a division of George Hamers Limited and not a separate legal entity.

The section 63 application was also dismissed as no collective agreement was in force when the assets were acquired in 1967.

However, the Board upheld the section 124 grievance, finding that George Hamers Limited violated the collective agreement by assigning bargaining unit work to a non-union employee in its L & M division.

The union was awarded damages.

The applicant union filed an application alleging a sale of business and related employer status between the respondents.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application without a hearing, arguing the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case and demanding further particulars.

The Board held that the application made out a prima facie case and that the statutory reverse onus provisions limit the extent to which an applicant must particularize facts exclusively within the respondents' knowledge.

However, the Board directed the applicant to provide further particulars regarding specific allegations of improper conduct.

The Board also deferred ruling on the intervener's status until it adduced evidence of a valid collective agreement.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The union filed documentary evidence of membership for more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the bargaining unit.

A group of employees filed statements of desire in opposition to the application.

The Board found that the voluntariness of the signatures of three union members who signed the statements of desire was not proven, as the person who witnessed most signatures did not witness theirs, and there was no evidence regarding the circumstances of their signing.

Consequently, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to direct a representation vote and granted the certification.

One Board member dissented, arguing a representation vote should have been held.

The applicant union brought an application under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act alleging that a sale of a business had taken place when the respondents acquired the leasehold interest and liquor licence of The Horseshoe Tavern.

The respondents argued that they had merely acquired assets and changed the character of the business from a 'punk rock' venue to a 'country and western' lounge.

The Board found that the transaction constituted a continuation of the predecessor's business, noting that the tavern operated at the same location, under the same name, and that the 'punk rock' format was merely a brief interlude in the tavern's long history as a country and western centre.

The Board declared that a sale of a business had occurred and that the union's bargaining rights continued to bind the respondents.

The complainants, employees and union members, alleged that the union violated sections 60 and 63(5) of the Labour Relations Act by providing insufficient notice for a contract ratification vote and conducting the meeting improperly.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union's conduct, while involving a misunderstanding regarding the strike deadline, did not amount to arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith representation.

The Board concluded that the employees were given a reasonable opportunity to participate in the secret ballot vote and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging the respondent company was bound by a provincial agreement based on a 'short form' agreement signed by an on-site installer in 1975.

The Board found that the installer lacked both actual and apparent authority to bind the company to a collective agreement.

Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence that the company subsequently ratified the agreement through its conduct.

The grievance was dismissed.

The applicant union and intervener union both applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent.

The respondent argued that the representation vote should be delayed until July 1982 due to a planned build-up of its workforce.

The Board applied the planned build-up principle, balancing the rights of current and future employees.

Finding that the expansion beyond January 1982 was dependent on uncertain market factors, the Board determined that a representative group of employees would be present by August 1, 1981, and ordered an immediate representation vote.

The union filed grievances alleging the employers violated the collective agreement by failing to provide or pay for screws and nails used by drywall applicators.

The employers complained the union bargained in bad faith by remaining silent on the issue during negotiations to alter past practice.

The Board held that the union's silence did not constitute bad faith bargaining, as the employers should have known the terms of the preceding agreement.

Interpreting the new collective agreement, which was silent on the issue unlike its predecessor, the Board found the employers were obligated to supply the materials and could not deduct their cost from piecework rates.

The applicant trade union sought a declaration under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act that a sale of a business occurred when the respondent purchased a plant and equipment from a predecessor company.

The Board found that the predecessor had ceased operating the plant 18 months prior to the transaction and that the respondent, which had been operating a parallel business, purchased idle assets to improve its own existing business.

The Board concluded that there was no transfer of a part of the predecessor's business that supported the employment of the employees represented by the applicant, and therefore dismissed the application.

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

The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection that the referral was untimely.

The Board found that the applicant had delayed progressing the grievance from October 1980 to February 1981 without providing any reasons for the inaction.

Balancing the delay against the potential prejudice to the respondent, the Board declined to exercise its discretion under section 37(5a) of the Act to extend the time limits.

The grievance was deemed not arbitrable and the application was dismissed.

The applicant union requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsider its decision finding Local 700 bound by a memorandum of settlement.

The union argued there was no evidence it authorized the settlement and that negotiations must take place through counsel.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no principle requires settlement negotiations to occur through counsel.

The Board also held that neither the Ironworkers District Council nor the other locals had standing to continue the grievance referral, as only Local 700 held representational rights for the employees and its rights regarding grievances were not vested in the Council.

The union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing the application, which contained signatures of employees who had previously signed union membership cards.

At the hearing, the representative for the objectors could not provide first-hand evidence regarding the origination of the petition and how the other signatures were obtained.

The Board found that due to these evidentiary gaps, it could not be satisfied that the petition represented the voluntary wishes of the employees.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and granted the certificate to the union.

One Board Member dissented, arguing that a vote should be ordered where there is no allegation of employer involvement and the evidentiary gaps are due to laypersons' unfamiliarity with Board procedures.

The complainant employer filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the respondent union violated section 38(2) of the Labour Relations Act by refusing union membership to an employee who had previously crossed a picket line and allegedly requiring his discharge.

The parties agreed to a statement of facts and asked the Board to provide an advisory opinion on the applicable law rather than making a formal determination.

The Board explained that while it cannot force a union to admit an individual into membership, section 38(2) prohibits a union from requiring an employer to discharge an employee under a union security clause if membership was denied because the employee engaged in activity against the union, such as crossing a picket line while represented by another union.

The proceedings were terminated based on the parties' agreement.

The Building Trades Council and several affiliated unions filed complaints and grievances against Ins-Co Sarnia Ltd. following the discharge of employees after an unlawful strike.

The parties engaged in settlement discussions, resulting in a memorandum of settlement signed by the Council's president.

Ironworkers Local 700, a member of the Council, subsequently argued it was not bound by the settlement and sought to continue its proceedings.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the Council had ostensible authority to settle the matters on behalf of Local 700.

As the employer relied on this authority without knowledge of any internal limitations, the settlement was binding on Local 700, and the proceedings were terminated.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent nursing home violated the Labour Relations Act by contracting out its housekeeping and janitorial work to an independent cleaning service.

The union argued that the decision was motivated by anti-union sentiment and unlawfully relieved the employer of its obligations under the collective agreement.

The Board found that the employer's decision was made entirely for legitimate business reasons, specifically to improve cleaning quality and save costs, with no evidence of anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed, with one Board member dissenting.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the respondents, Hugh Murray (1974) Limited and Trend Building Systems, were one employer.

The Board found that both companies were owned and controlled by the same individual, engaged in related construction activities, and operated from the same premises.

The Board granted the declaration, piercing the corporate veil to prevent the erosion of bargaining rights, and held that the union's province-wide bargaining rights applied to both entities.