Employment and Labour Law

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the respondent employers engaged in a series of corporate reorganizations and contracting-out arrangements designed to defeat the union's bargaining rights.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employers violated the Labour Relations Act by laying off unionized employees and transferring their work to other entities to avoid collective bargaining obligations.

The Board also found that the primary employer failed to bargain in good faith.

The Board ordered extensive remedial relief, including the reinstatement of the affected employees with back pay and a direction to commence collective bargaining.

Applications for a declaration of a sale of a business and for consent to prosecute were dismissed.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the respondent employer violated the Carpenters' provincial agreement by failing to hire local union members or obtain a referral slip for carpentry work performed on a construction project.

The work was performed entirely by the president of the respondent company.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the president was a managerial person and not an 'employee' within the meaning of the collective agreement's transfer and hiring provisions.

As such, he was not prohibited from performing the work or required to obtain a referral slip.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging the respondent general contractor violated the subcontracting clause of their collective agreement by subcontracting work to a non-union employer who used members of a competing union.

The respondent failed to appear at the hearing due to a misunderstanding that the matter was settled as a jurisdictional dispute.

The Board found the respondent failed to exercise reasonable diligence and refused to fully reopen the hearing.

However, recognizing the underlying issue was a jurisdictional dispute, the Board made contingent findings of liability and damages ($3,296.80) against the respondent, deferring final disposition for 10 days to allow any party to file a formal jurisdictional dispute claim.

The applicant union referred two grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer violated the collective agreement regarding emergency help, the hiring of first-year apprentices, and the lay-off of a job steward.

The Board dismissed the grievances relating to the emergency help and apprentices, finding that the union's telegram did not effectively end the emergency as it did not supply replacement workers, and that the employer was entitled to hire new first-year apprentices under the agreement.

However, the Board allowed the grievance regarding the job steward, finding that the employer violated the agreement by terminating the steward while there were still more than six men on the overall job site.

One Board member dissented on the dismissal of the first two issues.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the respondent union violated the Labour Relations Act by intimidating and coercing employees during a strike vote and a ratification vote, and sought to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

The Board found no evidence of intimidation or coercion, noting that the union's timing of the votes to protect its bargaining rights was a reasonable business practice.

The Board dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint and subsequently dismissed the application for termination of bargaining rights as untimely due to the existence of a valid collective agreement.

The applicant, Harold R. Stark Company Limited, requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsider its decision dismissing a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 91(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant argued that the matter should be treated under section 91(18) due to an alleged conflict between the bargaining unit descriptions in the U.A. and Labourers' provincial agreements.

The Board found no conflict in the recognition clauses, noting that the U.A. agreement covered a craft unit while the Labourers' agreement covered construction labourers.

The Board concluded that any conflict arose from competing work jurisdictions rather than bargaining unit descriptions, and denied the request for reconsideration.

A dissenting board member would have treated the matter as a jurisdictional dispute.

In an application for certification, the respondent employer alleged that an employee signed a union membership card but failed to pay the required $1.00 initiation fee.

The Board heard evidence from the employee, the collector, and other witnesses.

The majority of the Board found that the employee did not pay the $1.00 and that the collector had misled the union official who signed the Form 9 declaration.

Consequently, the Board declined to give any weight to the 20 membership cards collected by that individual.

The Board reserved its decision on whether to apply section 8 of the Act until the unfair labour practice allegations were heard.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote for employees of several construction companies.

The respondents and intervener raised complex issues, including whether the companies were related employers under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act and whether the intervener already held bargaining rights.

Despite these complexities, the Board directed a pre-hearing vote to ensure employees could vote before the construction workforce dispersed.

To accommodate the unresolved issue of the intervener's bargaining rights, the Board ordered a unique two-ballot procedure, with all ballots segregated and sealed pending a future hearing.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested the Board apply section 8 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the employer committed unfair labour practices that prevented the ascertainment of the employees' true wishes.

The Board found that the employer violated the Act when a manager attempted to elicit information from an employee about the union and suggested forming an employee association.

However, the Board concluded that this violation, along with a previously remedied unlawful termination, did not make it unlikely that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained.

The application for certification under section 8 was dismissed, but the Board ordered the employer to cease and desist from unlawful interference and to post and distribute a notice to employees.

The applicant union alleged that Molson's Brewery transferred part of its business to two subcontractors, Charming Hostess Inc. and Amsterdam Catering Services Limited, or alternatively, that the three entities should be treated as a single employer under the Labour Relations Act.

Molson's had closed its internal hospitality room and contracted with the respondents to provide upgraded food and hostess services in a new facility.

The Board found that Molson's had not disposed of part of its business but merely contracted for services to enhance its own operations.

The Board also declined to make a related employer declaration, noting the subcontractors were independent businesses and the union was attempting to extend, rather than preserve, its bargaining rights.

The applications were dismissed.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) applied for a declaration of successor rights and filed a complaint alleging the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith by refusing to recognize ONA as the bargaining agent.

The employer argued it had only recognized a specific local, not the provincial ONA.

The Board found that the employer had signed a clear and unequivocal voluntary recognition agreement in 1975 recognizing the provincial ONA.

The Board declared that ONA holds the bargaining rights and declined to make a formal finding of bad faith bargaining, expecting the employer to comply.

The applicant union brought an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act alleging a sale of a business from the predecessor employer to the respondent purchaser.

The predecessor owned two office buildings and employed cleaning staff represented by the union.

Prior to the sale, the predecessor contracted out the cleaning operations to a third party and later sold the buildings to the respondent, assigning the cleaning contract.

The Board found that a sale of a business occurred and that the union's bargaining rights continued to apply to the respondent.

However, the Board held that a prior memorandum of settlement was never ratified by the predecessor, meaning the respondent was not bound by any subsisting collective agreement.

The Board deferred determining the true employer status of the cleaning staff as the third-party contractor was not a party to the proceedings.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent's group home.

Although the union filed membership cards for more than 55% of the employees, five employees filed statements of desire opposing the application.

The Board inquired into the voluntariness of these statements.

The Board found that the employer had held a meeting expressing opposition to the union, mentioning potential closure of the home, and shortly thereafter sent termination notices to all employees.

The Board concluded that the employer's actions were capable of unduly influencing the employees, rendering the statements of desire involuntary.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and granted certification.

The applicant union sought to displace the incumbent union and be certified as the bargaining agent for employees at the respondent's Toronto nursing home.

The incumbent union argued that the appropriate bargaining unit was its existing comprehensive multi-location unit covering several nursing homes.

The Board found that the established multi-location bargaining structure had been in place for years without issue and was presumptively appropriate.

The Board declined to fragment the established unit, finding the proposed single-location unit inappropriate.

As the applicant lacked sufficient membership support in the broader unit, the application was dismissed.

The complainant, an employee in the bargaining unit, alleged that the respondent union violated section 63(4) of the Labour Relations Act during a ratification vote.

The complainant argued that the absence of a voting screen and the use of a table instead of a ballot box compromised the secrecy of the ballot.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the voting procedure, which utilized trusted rank-and-file scrutineers and provided reasonable privacy, met the objective standard of secrecy required by the Act.

A reasonable employee would not have had a substantial reason to fear their ballot would not remain secret.

The Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union and the International Ladies Garment Workers Union both conducted organizing campaigns at the respondent's plant.

The respondent laid off four key union supporters.

The Amalgamated applied for certification and both unions filed unfair labour practice complaints.

The Board found that the layoffs were unlawfully motivated by anti-union animus.

However, the Board declined to grant certification without a vote under section 7a, reasoning that both unions had been equally damaged and had competing claims to employee allegiance.

Instead, the Board ordered extensive remedial measures, including reinstatement with compensation, a posting and mailing of notices, union access to the plant, and a new representation vote.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a newly incorporated non-union plumbing company was bound by its provincial agreement with the predecessor unionized company, alleging a sale of business or related employer status.

The predecessor company, controlled by one brother, ceased operations due to an inability to compete with non-union contractors.

The new company was formed by his brother and former employees.

The Board dismissed the applications, finding no common control or direction to support a related employer declaration, and no transfer of a functional economic vehicle to constitute a sale of a business.

The union applied for certification.

The employer challenged the inclusion of four persons, arguing they exercised managerial functions.

The Board found all four were employees.

The union also requested certification without a vote under section 7a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the employer committed unfair labour practices.

The Board found the employer violated the Act by suspending a union supporter, withdrawing overtime from union supporters, threatening employees, and posting a notice threatening to reduce holidays.

Concluding that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained in a representation vote and that the union had adequate support, the Board certified the union without a vote.

During an ongoing hearing for a duty of fair representation complaint, the applicant moved for the production of notes made by a union official during the preparation of the applicant's arbitration case several years prior.

The union official testified that the notes were either lost, destroyed, or buried in hundreds of boxes sent to the Federal Archives.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding it unreasonable to direct the union to undertake a massive search for un-subpoenaed documents that may not exist or be relevant, especially given the applicant's delay in filing the complaint.

The applicant union applied under section 95(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether certain persons were employees of the respondent.

The respondent and intervener objected to the jurisdiction of the Board Officer to conduct an inquiry, arguing that there was no 'question' as to employee status since they conceded the persons were employees within the meaning of the Act, just not employees of the respondent.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that it has jurisdiction under section 95(2) to determine not only if a person is an employee, but also whether they are an employee of the specific employer party to the collective agreement.

The Board revised the Board Officer's appointment to inquire into whether the individuals are employees of the respondent.