Employment and Labour Law

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer discharged the grievor because of her union activity, contrary to section 66 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer maintained that the grievor was discharged pursuant to its disciplinary practice after receiving a third written warning for violating published rules.

The Board found that the employer established good cause for the discharge and that there was insufficient evidence to infer the employer had knowledge of the grievor's union activities or acted out of anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed.

The employer referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the union engaged in an unlawful strike in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector.

The union argued that the employer was estopped from claiming damages because it had delayed filing the grievance for eight months while acquiescing to the union's conduct.

The Board found that while estoppel might not strictly apply, the employer's unreasonable delay in asserting its rights under the collective agreement warranted limiting the retroactive period for which damages could be claimed.

The Board restricted the employer's damage claim to the period subsequent to March 10, 1980, and directed that the matter be re-listed for hearing on the merits for that period.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint after the employer attempted to transfer a records clerk job, held by a member of the complainant for 23 years, to a different bargaining unit represented by another union.

The Board determined that the matter was essentially a jurisdictional dispute and applied section 91 of the Labour Relations Act.

Weighing the criteria, particularly the employer's long-standing past practice and the collective bargaining relationship, the Board directed that the work continue to be assigned to the complainant's bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine whether certain persons were employees.

The respondent hospital objected, arguing that the parties had just concluded a new collective agreement without the union reserving the issue of employee status.

The Board applied its policy that a party cannot unilaterally withdraw from an agreement on employment status absent a material change in duties.

Because the union did not reserve its right prior to the new agreement, the Board limited the appointment of a Board Officer to inquiring only into material changes in duties and responsibilities since the new agreement was entered into.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a unit of foremen employed by the respondent.

The respondent argued that the foremen exercised managerial functions and were therefore excluded from the definition of 'employee' under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board examined the duties and responsibilities of the foremen, including their role in disciplining employees, responding to grievances, and assessing probationary employees.

The majority of the Board concluded that the foremen exercised true managerial functions and dismissed the application for certification.

One Board member dissented, finding the foremen's duties to be merely supervisory.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

At the hearing, after the Board established the bargaining unit and announced the membership count, the employer sought to amend the list of employees to include two previously excluded employees.

The union then requested to reconsider the bargaining unit composition to exclude office and clerical staff.

The Board denied both requests, emphasizing that its rules and procedures are designed to prevent parties from gerrymandering employee lists or bargaining unit structures after the count is revealed.

Finding that more than 55% of the employees in the unit were members of the applicant, the Board granted certification without a representation vote.

The complainant union filed a jurisdictional dispute under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the assignment of work involving the insertion and removal of blanks in standpipes on a coke oven.

The employer had assigned the work on a fifty-fifty basis between the complainant and the respondent union.

The complainant union disputed this assignment, claiming 100% of the work, and its members subsequently walked off the job and refused to perform any of the work, including their assigned 50%.

The Board dismissed the complaint on preliminary objections, holding that the complainant could not claim entitlement to work that its members had explicitly refused to perform.

In an application for certification, a pre-hearing representation vote resulted in a tie with four segregated ballots.

The Board held a hearing to determine the eligibility of the employees who cast the segregated ballots.

Applying the 'seven week rule', the Board determined that one employee was eligible to vote as a full-time employee, while the others were ineligible as part-time employees or students employed during the school vacation period.

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

The complainant alleged he was discharged by the respondent contrary to section 66(a) of the Labour Relations Act for his union activities.

The respondent claimed the discharge was due to the complainant's involvement in overcharging a client.

The Board found that the respondent's actions, including circumventing the union's bargaining rights and abruptly discharging the complainant shortly before collective bargaining was to begin, demonstrated anti-union animus.

The Board concluded the discharge was tainted by anti-union motivation and ordered the complainant's reinstatement with compensation, subject to a reduction for a brief delay in filing the complaint.

The complainants in a jurisdictional dispute sought to amend their complaint by adding a request to alter the bargaining unit and by providing a more detailed description of the work in dispute.

The respondents opposed the amendments, arguing that the Board lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief and that the dispute could not be expanded beyond the original complaint.

The Board granted both motions, holding that it had jurisdiction under section 58 of its Rules of Procedure to permit the amendments and that arguments regarding the legal sustainability of the requested relief were premature at the commencement of the hearing.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer terminated the grievor's employment because of his known support for the union, contrary to section 58 of the Labour Relations Act.

The grievor had recently been reinstated following a previous Board order finding an earlier termination to be an unfair labour practice.

Shortly after his reinstatement, the grievor was denied a shift bonus and a wage increase, and was ordered to transfer to another branch.

When he refused, he was fired.

The Board found that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving that the termination was not motivated by anti-union considerations.

The Board ordered the employer to reinstate the grievor to his former position on the day shift, grant him a wage increase, and fully compensate him for lost wages with interest.

The intervener trade union objected to the results of a representation vote, alleging that an employee supporting the applicant union violated the silent period by attempting to persuade other employees at a social event.

The Board dismissed the objection, finding that a conversation between employees at an unconnected social event did not constitute 'campaigning' or an organized attempt to persuade.

A certificate was issued to the applicant union.

The applicant union sought certification for a unit of millwrights employed by the respondent in Ontario.

The application was opposed on the basis that a subsisting collective agreement existed between the respondent and an intervening union (Lodge No. 126), which was headquartered in Illinois.

The applicant argued that Lodge No. 126 lacked status as a trade union in Ontario because it had no permanent presence in the province, and that its agreement could not be a valid collective agreement.

The Board held that an organization need not have a permanent presence in Ontario to be a trade union, provided it is a viable organization capable of carrying out trade union functions in the province.

The Board found Lodge No. 126 met this definition and that its agreement with the respondent was a valid collective agreement covering Ontario.

Consequently, the application for certification was dismissed as untimely.

The respondent employer sought reconsideration of a previous Board decision ordering it to compensate three employees for unlawful discharge.

The employer argued it was prejudiced because a former articling student of the Board subsequently represented the union at the compensation hearing.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no evidence of prejudice, noting the employer failed to raise the issue at the hearing, and observing that the employer was attempting to delay its legal obligations.

The Board directed that its compensation order be filed in the Supreme Court for enforcement.

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

The grievance spanned two provincial agreements, and the respondent union argued that the portion relating to the expired collective agreement was inarbitrable.

The Board, adopting previous jurisprudence, held that rights accruing during the life of a collective agreement are vested and not automatically extinguished by its expiry.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to deal with the grievance under both the current and expired agreements and ordered the matter to be re-listed for hearing.

The applicant requested the Board to reconsider its decision dismissing an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The applicant argued the Board's decision was contrary to the weight of evidence and that the Board applied overly strict rules to the petition.

The Board found no new grounds for reconsideration, noting that the petition was circulated in a cafeteria where supervisors were present, making it impossible to conclude the signatures represented a voluntary expression of the employees' wishes.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed, with one Board member dissenting.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed an unfair labour practice by closing its Windsor Branch Plant and servicing the area from Chatham, arguing the closure was designed to remove the union as bargaining agent.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's decision was motivated solely by bona fide business considerations, specifically the loss of a major customer account and the need to improve profitability, and was devoid of any anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer laid off sixteen employees to interfere with a union organizing campaign.

The employer claimed the layoffs were due to automation and economic reasons.

Applying the reverse onus under section 79(4a) of the Labour Relations Act, the Board found that while some layoffs were justified by business reasons, the extent of the layoffs was motivated in part by anti-union animus upon the employer learning of the certification application.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the four most senior laid-off employees with compensation.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the respondent companies were bound by the provincial Carpenters' collective agreement, either as a sale of a business under s. 55 or as related employers under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The principal, Roy Brandon, had operated a unionized construction company that went bankrupt in 1973.

He subsequently started new non-union companies.

The Board found that while s. 55 did not apply, the companies were related employers under s. 1(4) despite the intervening bankruptcy.

The Board exercised its discretion to grant the declaration but limited its retroactive effect, making it applicable only to contracts entered into after the respondents received notice of the union's claim.

One Board member dissented on the prospective limitation of the remedy.

The applicant union and respondent employer disputed the eligibility of three individuals who cast segregated ballots in a representation vote.

The parties agreed at the hearing to count the first ballot.

The Board ordered the second ballot counted because the employee had been reinstated with full compensation in a related unfair labour practice proceeding, entitling him to participate in the vote.

The Board ruled the third ballot should not be counted because the employee had been transferred out of the bargaining unit for an indefinite period prior to the date the vote was taken, failing the Board's two-pronged voter eligibility rule.