Employment and Labour Law

The applicant employee filed an application for termination of the respondent union's bargaining rights, supported by a petition signed by approximately 70% of the employees in the bargaining unit.

The union argued that the petition was not voluntary because the applicant and another employee who circulated it were group leaders who exercised managerial functions or could be perceived as managerial.

The Board found that the group leaders were members of the bargaining unit and their role in circulating the petition was peripheral.

The Board concluded that the petition was a voluntary expression of employee wishes and directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant union applied to displace the incumbent union as the bargaining agent for the respondent's plant employees.

The applicant won the representation vote.

The incumbent union argued that the application should be dismissed under section 13 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the employer provided support to the applicant.

The incumbent also argued that the vote was invalid because the employer failed to implement an arbitration award requiring the discharge of employees who did not pay union dues.

The Board found no evidence of employer support for the applicant and concluded that the employer's response to the arbitration award did not invalidate the vote.

The Board certified the applicant union.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent cleaning and maintenance employees, including resident superintendents.

A dispute arose over whether the wives of the superintendents, who worked as part of a team but were not paid directly or subject to statutory deductions, were 'employees' under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the wives were employees because they performed work under the respondent's direction and control and shared accommodation provided by the respondent.

A representation vote was ordered.

The applicant union alleged that the respondent was a successor employer under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act after the original employer, Hoco Limited, contracted out the management of its hotel restaurants to the respondent.

The respondent was responsible for hiring and supervising staff and received a percentage of sales or profits, but Hoco retained ownership, control of revenues, and decision-making power over prices and hours.

The Board found that the arrangement was a contracting out of services rather than a transfer of a functional economic vehicle or part of a business.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union sought certification for a single bargaining unit comprising employees at three of the respondent's plants.

The respondent argued that three separate single-plant units were appropriate.

Applying the Usarco criteria, the Board considered the community of interest, centralization of managerial authority, economic factors, and source of work.

The Board found that the lack of employee interchange, the identical nature of the work, and the considerable autonomy of the individual plant managers tilted the balance in favour of three separate units.

The application was dismissed with respect to one unit due to insufficient membership support, and the ballots for the other two units were ordered to be counted.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for employees engaged in concrete forming construction.

The Board granted an adjournment regarding the related employer and sale of business issues between the two respondents.

However, the Board proceeded with the application concerning Highrise Crane and Rental Limited.

Finding that the applicant had the requisite membership support, the Board granted interim certification for a bargaining unit of employees engaged in concrete forming on residential building projects, pending the final determination of the status of Matterhorn Construction.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied for certification to represent five part-time registered nurses employed by the Manitoulin Nursing Home.

The respondent employer argued that the nurses exercised managerial functions and were therefore not 'employees' under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the nurses' limited supervisory and coordinating duties were inherent to their professional training and did not constitute managerial authority, as they did not make decisions affecting the economic lives of fellow employees.

The Board concluded the nurses were employees within the meaning of the Act and granted the certificate.

The applicant employer applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 51(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration terminating the union's bargaining rights, alleging the union failed to seek to bargain for a period of 60 days.

The parties had met once to commence bargaining, after which 12 weeks elapsed without the union seeking to bargain.

However, the union subsequently applied for conciliation services before the employer filed its termination application.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union's renewed interest in pursuing its bargaining rights through the conciliation request cured its earlier lack of diligence, making termination inappropriate.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of two employees.

Prior to the terminal date, one employee filed a petition withdrawing his support for the union.

The union argued the petition was not voluntary because the employee gave a copy to the employer's property manager and there were gaps in the evidence regarding its preparation.

The majority of the Board accepted the employee's evidence that he voluntarily changed his mind after discussing the matter with his wife, and found no employer interference.

The petition was accepted as voluntary and the matter was referred to the Registrar.

A dissenting member would have rejected the petition as involuntary due to employer influence and the employee's fear of losing his job.

The complainant, a union member, alleged that the respondent trade union failed to provide him with an adequate audited financial statement upon request, contrary to section 76 of the Labour Relations Act.

Specifically, the complainant sought detailed information regarding lost time wages, expenses, salaries, and entertainment.

The Board heard expert accounting evidence that the financial statement provided was adequate and conformed to professional standards.

The Board found that the union had satisfied the statutory requirements and that the complainant could seek the detailed information he desired through the union's internal procedures at monthly membership meetings.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union applied under section 82 of The Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 1975 to determine whether the incumbents of 15 positions at the respondent college were 'employees' within the meaning of the Act.

The respondent argued that the positions were excluded as managerial or confidential.

The Board found that 11 first-line supervisors exercised sufficient managerial authority, including handling grievances and monitoring performance, to be excluded from the bargaining unit.

However, the Board found that four other positions, including a Programmer Analyst, Systems Analyst, Payroll Assistant, and Payroll Clerk, did not have regular and material involvement in confidential matters and were therefore employees included in the bargaining unit.

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the employer responded to its organizing campaign by relocating two union supporters, discharging the primary union organizer, and forcing another supporter to resign.

The employer claimed the relocations and terminations were for business reasons, including efficiency and absenteeism.

The Board found that the employer's actions were motivated by anti-union animus in violation of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the discharged employees with full compensation, along with a posting order, union access to the employer's premises and bulletin board, and a list of employee names and addresses.

The Board declined to award damages for loss of dignity or additional organizing expenses, and denied the union's request for consent to prosecute.

The applicant employees' association applied for certification.

The intervener union requested reconsideration of a pre-hearing vote direction and challenged the applicant's status as a trade union.

The Board heard evidence regarding the formation of the applicant association, including the drafting of a constitution, holding of a meeting, admission of members, ratification of the constitution, and election of officers.

The Board found that the procedures adopted by the four founding employees were sufficient to establish the association as a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1)(n) of the Labour Relations Act.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated the statutory freeze period under section 70(1) of the Labour Relations Act by changing shift assignments and reducing the regular weekly hours of work for certain employees.

The employer argued the changes were valid business decisions made to accommodate a shift in program focus and funding constraints.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the layoffs and shift reassignments were a continuation of the employer's past practice of managing its operations and did not violate the Act.

However, the Board held that the implementation of a work-sharing arrangement, which reduced the hours of two employees instead of laying one off, was not an established practice and therefore violated the statutory freeze.

The Board ordered compensation for the affected employees and the posting of a notice.

The applicant trade union sought to withdraw its application for certification because the respondent employer had gone out of business.

The intervener requested that the application be dismissed and a time bar imposed under section 92 of the Labour Relations Act, as a representation vote had already been directed.

The Board dismissed the application but declined to impose a time bar, noting that the respondent was no longer in business, the construction industry context involves fluctuating workforces, and the applicant's membership evidence had not been fully tested due to unresolved issues regarding the representation votes.

The applicant employee association applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote to displace the incumbent union (the intervener).

The intervener argued the application was untimely under section 92(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act due to a recently dismissed termination application, and that a pre-hearing vote could not be ordered before the applicant proved its trade union status.

The Board held that despite the prior unsuccessful termination application, the lengthy strike and passage of time warranted entertaining the certification application to test employee wishes.

The Board also directed a pre-hearing vote with the ballot box sealed pending a subsequent determination of the applicant's trade union status.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's plant.

The respondent and objectors argued that truck drivers, servicemen, and motor vehicle mechanics should be excluded from the unit due to a separate community of interest.

The Board applied the Usarco factors and found that the employees did not comprise a unit of such diverse interests and functions to warrant exclusion from an all-employee unit.

The Board also declined to exercise its discretion to conduct a vote on the appropriateness of the unit.

A formal certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent soft drink distributor.

The parties disputed the status of twelve delivery drivers who owned or leased their trucks.

The Board applied the dependent contractor test under section 1(1)(ga) of The Labour Relations Act, finding that the drivers' economic dependence on the respondent and their obligation to perform duties more closely resembled an employment relationship than that of independent contractors.

The Board concluded the drivers were dependent contractors and included them in the bargaining unit, granting the certificate.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of taxi owner-operators.

The central issue was whether the owner-operators were dependent contractors (and thus employees under the Labour Relations Act) or independent contractors.

The Board found that the owner-operators performed services for compensation, were economically dependent on the respondent's dispatch service, and were subject to a high degree of control by the respondent.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the owner-operators were dependent contractors and certified the applicant as their exclusive bargaining agent.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement by failing to hire union members and by subcontracting work to a non-union firm.

The employer argued that the collective agreement had expired and that the union's notice to bargain was defective.

The Board found that the parties were bound by the provincial agreement, that the notice to bargain was valid given the parties' subsequent bargaining conduct, and that the employer had violated the hiring and subcontracting provisions.

The Board directed the parties to agree on the amount of damages owing to the union.