Employment and Labour Law

The complainant, a welder discharged for poor workmanship, alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union took his discharge grievance to arbitration and raised a technical objection regarding notice under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator reinstated the complainant without compensation, penalizing him for the union's late notice of the preliminary objection.

The complainant argued the union's mistake in not raising the argument earlier constituted arbitrary conduct.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding the union acted in good faith and its handling of the weak case was not arbitrary.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the working agreement relied upon by the union was signed under economic duress caused by an unlawful strike and picketing.

The Board found that the Building Trades Council had engaged in unlawful conduct by threatening and causing an unlawful strike to force the employer to sign the agreement.

Consequently, the Board declined to give effect to the working agreement, finding no valid collective bargaining relationship existed.

The grievance was dismissed.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer closed its egg grading business and sold it to a newly formed company to evade its collective bargaining obligations.

The union sought a declaration that a sale of business occurred and that its bargaining rights bound the new company, as well as remedies for unfair labour practices.

The Board found that a sale of business had occurred, but that the union's bargaining rights did not extend to the new company's location.

The Board also found that the plant closure was economically motivated and not an unfair labour practice.

However, the Board concluded that the new company unlawfully refused to hire several former employees because of their suspected union activity, and that the predecessor employer unlawfully discharged a key union organizer.

The Board ordered reinstatement and compensation for the affected employees.

The complainant filed a complaint under section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging twenty instances of rights violations by the respondent employer.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board reviewed the allegations, noting that only two related to the Act, including a work refusal due to dust which was resolved by a joint health and safety committee inspection.

The Board found no substantial harm or valid reprisal in the remaining allegations and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant sought an exemption from paying union dues based on his religious convictions under section 47 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent union requested the application be dismissed without a hearing because it was untimely, as the applicant commenced employment after the collective agreement containing the union security clause was first entered into.

The applicant argued the timeliness restriction was discriminatory and conflicted with the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Board held that the statutory language was clear and unequivocal, and that the Code does not have primacy over the Labour Relations Act.

The application was dismissed without a hearing for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The applicant union applied for certification.

An employee association intervened, seeking certification as a rival trade union.

The Board found that the intervener was formed by a small group of employees opposed to unionization, and that the employer's plant manager had provided them with a list of employee names and telephone numbers to assist in forming the association.

The Board held that this constituted employer support within the meaning of section 13 of the Labour Relations Act.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the intervener's application for certification and directed a representation vote for the applicant union.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that three respondent companies constituted a single employer, or alternatively, that a sale of a business occurred under section 63.

The Board found no sale of business from CM to Pioneer and declined to treat them as a single employer, noting the union had historically treated CM and Subito as separate entities.

However, the Board found that Subito and Pioneer, despite operating at different times, were associated businesses under common direction and control.

The Board exercised its discretion to declare Subito and Pioneer a single employer, binding them to the provincial agreement in the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector.

The applicant union applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union under section 52 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the applicant lacked status because it did not represent the employees in the bargaining unit.

The applicant relied on two recognition documents, arguing there was a latent ambiguity that would allow extrinsic evidence to show the agreements covered the work in question (refurbishing concrete columns on the Gardner Expressway).

The Board found no latent ambiguity, as the documents clearly restricted recognition to the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector, whereas the work in question fell outside that sector.

Consequently, the applicant did not represent the affected employees and lacked status to bring the application.

The application was dismissed.

The Town of Gananoque sought a declaration under section 95(2) of the Labour Relations Act that an accounting clerk was not an employee within the meaning of section 1(3)(b) due to her employment in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

The majority of the Board found that the clerk's access to sensitive written material prepared for the Town's bargaining committee created a conflict of interest, justifying her exclusion from the bargaining unit.

A dissenting member argued her involvement was too peripheral to warrant exclusion.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the Perley Hospital unlawfully locked out 38 employees and discharged 6 part-time employees as a reprisal for their participation in an unlawful strike.

The Hospital argued that the failure to recall the employees was due to a decision to upgrade the quality of its nursing staff by hiring more registered nurses and registered nurse's aides, and that the part-time employees were discharged according to established practice for failing to report to work.

The Board found that the Hospital's actions, while opportunistic and partly prompted by the strike, were not motivated by a desire to chill lawful union activity or freeze out the union executive.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A petition in opposition was filed, signed by two employees who had previously signed union cards.

One of these employees subsequently filed a statement revoking his signature on the petition and reaffirming his desire to be represented by the union.

The Board inquired into the voluntariness of the revocation statement.

Despite the statement being a standard form, the Board found no basis to refuse it at face value, as the employee had the opportunity to read and agree with it.

The Board discounted the employee's signature on the petition, leaving the union with unequivocal membership support of over 55%.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

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

The intervener union argued the application was untimely because it was made on the same day a conciliation officer was appointed.

The Board found the application timely under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, as it was not made after the day the conciliation officer was appointed.

The Board directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be taken.

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

An intervener employees' association also applied for certification but did not request a vote.

Because the intervener had not previously established its status as a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, the applicant requested that the pre-hearing vote be deferred until the intervener's status was determined.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the applicant's request, distinguishing prior cases where the applicant's own status was in question, and directed that the matter be listed for a hearing to allow the intervener to establish its trade union status before any vote is held.

The applicant applied for an exemption from the union security provisions of a collective agreement on the grounds of religious conviction or belief.

The applicant was hired in 1977 and became a member of the union.

He later concluded that his association with the union was inconsistent with his religious beliefs.

The Board dismissed the application because section 39 of the Labour Relations Act only allows for an exemption during the life of the first collective agreement containing such provisions, provided the employee was employed at the time it was entered into.

The applicant did not meet these requirements.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Two timely statements of desire (petitions) were filed in opposition.

The union argued the petitions were not voluntary due to comments made by a petitioner at a union meeting and a letter distributed by the employer regarding an altercation between employees.

The Board found that the petitioner was not perceived as management and his comments were personal views.

The Board also found the employer's letter to be evenhanded and not coercive.

Concluding the petitions were voluntary, the Board exercised its discretion to order a representation vote.

Board Member Fenwick dissented.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that A & P and A & P Drug Mart Limited are one employer.

The union represented employees in A & P's retail stores, but the company operated its pharmacies through a separate corporate entity, paying pharmacy assistants lower wages.

The respondents argued the union delayed in bringing the application.

The Board found the two entities were engaged in related activities under common control and direction.

The Board also held the union exercised due diligence, as it filed grievances immediately upon learning of the wage discrepancy and only later discovered the separate corporate identity.

The Board declared the entities to be one employer.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for construction labourers employed by the respondent in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector in Ontario.

The respondent alleged improper conduct by the union during organizing, but failed to adduce evidence to substantiate the claims.

The Board interpreted section 131a of the Labour Relations Act and determined that the applicant was entitled to two certificates: one for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector province-wide, and another for all other sectors in the relevant geographic area, excluding employees already covered by subsisting collective agreements.

The applicant union applied under section 5 of The Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act, 1977, seeking a declaration that it is the sole bargaining agent for employees of the respondent municipality following the transfer of water and sewage treatment plants from the Province.

The intervener union argued that the transfer was not complete pending Ontario Municipal Board approval and sought to preserve a separate bargaining unit for the transferred employees.

The Board found that a transfer of functions had occurred and that the employees had been substantially intermingled.

Given the overwhelming majority of employees already represented by the applicant union and the labour relations difficulties of fragmenting the bargaining structure, the Board declared the applicant union the bargaining agent for the merged unit and terminated the intervener's bargaining rights without a representation vote.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of office, clerical, and technical employees.

The parties disputed the employment status of three Work Measurement Applicators.

The employer argued they should be excluded from the unit because they exercised managerial functions and were confidentially employed in matters relating to labour relations.

The Board found that the Work Measurement Applicators made decisions on behalf of the company that directly affected employee wages and represented the company in the grievance procedure.

Consequently, the Board concluded they exercised managerial responsibilities and were confidentially employed, excluding them from the bargaining unit.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union applied for certification to displace the incumbent union representing technical paramedical employees and to expand the bargaining unit to include previously unrepresented professional paramedical employees.

The Board held that in a displacement application, a union cannot sweep in a group of previously unrepresented employees solely on the strength of its membership support in the incumbent's unit.

The Board found the incumbent's bargaining unit to be the appropriate unit, ordered a representation vote for that unit, and dismissed the application as it related to the unrepresented professional employees due to insufficient membership support.