Employment and Labour Law

The union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging the employer violated the collective agreement regarding commuting and travel allowances.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the union was estopped from bringing the grievance due to a long-standing past practice of paying mileage rather than board allowance for Timmins area residents on local jobs.

The Board applied the doctrine of estoppel by conduct, finding that the union had accepted this practice during the renegotiation of the collective agreement.

The grievance was dismissed.

The respondent employer requested reconsideration of a Board decision, asking that its internal division name be added to its corporate name in the style of cause.

The Board dismissed the request, noting that the legal entity is the corporation itself and that restricting bargaining rights to a specific division is properly accomplished in the bargaining unit description rather than the style of cause.

The applicant employee filed a petition to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

A counter-petition was subsequently filed by other employees, which, if valid, would have reduced the support for decertification below the required 45 percent threshold.

The Board rejected the applicant's argument that counter-petitions are invalid as a matter of law in termination proceedings.

However, the Board found the specific counter-petition in this case to be unreliable because the majority of employees could not read English and the explanation provided to them was confusing.

As the original petition maintained the requisite support, the Board ordered a representation vote.

The applicant applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights and filed a statement of desire signed by over 45% of the bargaining unit.

The union subsequently filed a counter-petition reaffirming support, signed by several employees who had signed the initial statement.

The Board held that the counter-petition was relevant and represented the last voluntary expression of the employees' wishes prior to the terminal date.

As the counter-petition reduced the number of employees opposing the union to below 45%, the application for termination was dismissed.

The union applied for certification and filed unfair labour practice complaints against the respondent, a numbered company that purchased the business of Chandelle Fashions after it went into receivership and bankruptcy.

The Board ordered a representation vote for the certification application due to a voluntary employee petition.

The Board found the respondent committed an unfair labour practice by failing to recall two key union supporters and ordered their reinstatement with compensation.

However, the Board dismissed the union's applications under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, holding that while a sale of a business occurred, a bona fide purchaser without notice is not liable to remedy the predecessor's unfair labour practices, and the two entities were not related employers.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent hospital breached the Labour Relations Act by dealing directly with employees.

The hospital had asked certain nurses to sign forms agreeing to work scheduled shifts at their regular rate of pay.

The Board found that the forms did not alter any working conditions or terms of employment established by an interest arbitration award.

There was no evidence that the hospital refused to recognize the union, interfered with employee rights, or discriminated against any employee.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent rodmen employed by the respondent construction company.

The respondent and interveners alleged that the applicant unlawfully coerced the respondent into hiring two of its members by threatening to picket the construction site, which would likely cause an unlawful strike.

The Board found that the applicant's representative did threaten to picket the site if the respondent did not replace members of another union with its own members.

The Board held that this threat constituted a threat of an unlawful strike under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

Because the employment of the two union members was obtained through this unlawful conduct, the Board refused to recognize them as employees for the purpose of the certification application, resulting in the dismissal of the application due to insufficient membership support.

The union applied for certification of employees at an abandoned gold mine currently undergoing dewatering and rebuilding.

The employer argued the application was premature due to a potential future build-up of employees.

The Board rejected this argument as the employer had no fixed plans for expansion.

Applying established Board policy for mining operations, the Board determined that the mine was in the 'development stage' and defined the appropriate bargaining unit accordingly.

Finding that more than 55% of the employees in the unit were union members, the Board granted the certificate.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer argued that the employees should be divided into two bargaining units: editorial employees and office/clerical/sales employees.

The union sought a single comprehensive unit.

The Board noted its flexible approach to bargaining units in the newspaper industry, as established in The Spectator and Peterborough Examiner.

Given the parties' agreement, the Board directed a representation vote among the editorial staff to determine their preference for a separate or comprehensive bargaining unit.

The Board also appointed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the duties of the sports editor and the secretary to the publisher.

The Minister of Labour referred questions to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his authority to appoint a conciliation officer for Local 353 and the Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council.

Local 353, previously bargaining through the Council, sought to bargain separately with the employer and gave notice of its withdrawal from the Council's bargaining unit.

The Board found that the Council acted merely as an agent for Local 353, not as a certified council of trade unions, and that Local 353 had not abandoned its individual bargaining rights.

The Board concluded that Local 353 provided proper notice under the Labour Relations Act and the collective agreement, and therefore the Minister had the authority to appoint a conciliation officer for both Local 353 and the Council (for the remaining unions).

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the respondent employer violated a provincial collective agreement.

The respondent argued that it was not bound by the agreement, asserting that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights or was estopped from asserting them due to a four-and-a-half-year delay in enforcement.

The Board found that the respondent was bound by successive collective agreements by operation of law under the Labour Relations Act, including the province-wide collective agreement.

The Board rejected the abandonment and estoppel arguments, determining that a collective agreement was in effect and directing the matter to continue on the issue of damages.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent hospital committed an unfair labour practice by filing a professional misconduct complaint against the local union president with the College of Nurses.

The union president had made inaccurate public statements at a press conference linking a patient's death to understaffing in the intensive care unit.

The Board found that the union president's statements, though inaccurate, were made without malice and constituted protected trade union activity under the Labour Relations Act.

However, the Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the hospital lacked anti-union animus and held a genuine belief that the statements constituted professional misconduct when it reported her to the College.

The applicant trade union requested that the Board amplify or clarify its previous decision declaring the respondents to be one employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, specifically regarding whether the declaration had retrospective effect.

The Board held that unless a section 1(4) declaration is specifically stated otherwise, it has force and effect from the time the associated or related activities commenced, not just from the date of the declaration.

The Board declined to reopen or reconsider its declaration to limit its retrospective effect.

The complainant, a former zone affiliate of the respondent employer bargaining agency, alleged that the respondent breached its duty of fair representation under section 151(2) of the Labour Relations Act by excluding it from the Mechanical Trade Bargaining Committee (MTBC).

The complainant had withdrawn from full membership due to concerns over the involvement of non-union employers but sought continued participation in labour relations matters.

The Board found that the respondent acted arbitrarily by failing to properly consult with the complainant regarding negotiations.

The Board ordered the respondent to grant the complainant observer status at MTBC meetings, though it declined to order full voting rights.

The union applied for certification of employees in the respondent's diagnostic services division.

A dispute arose over whether two employees who performed blood tests and electrocardiograms at a nursing home were 'hospital employees' under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The Board held that because the employer was not a hospital and the functions performed were not statutorily required of a nursing home, the employees were not 'hospital employees' within the meaning of the Act.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that Inducon Construction of Canada Limited and related companies violated the Carpenters' provincial collective agreement.

The respondents argued that any bargaining rights previously held had been abandoned and that the companies were not related employers.

The Board found that the union had not abandoned its bargaining rights, as the employer had not operated in the geographic area for several years.

Applying section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, the Board declared that Inducon Development Corporation, Inducon Design/Build Associates, and Inducon Construction (Northern) Inc. carried on associated or related activities under common control and direction, and treated them as one employer bound by the provincial collective agreement.

The Board declined to include Desbil Management Inc. and Inducon Consultants of Canada Limited in the declaration, finding no labour relations purpose to do so.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The respondent employer alleged that the union organizer misrepresented the initiation fee structure by telling employees they would have to pay a higher fee if they did not join immediately, thereby coercing them into signing membership cards.

The Board found that while there may have been some confusion, the organizer did not intend to mislead employees and the statements did not amount to coercion or fundamental misrepresentation.

The Board also found that counter-petitions signed by employees reaffirming their support for the union were voluntary.

As the union had the support of more than 55 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit, a certificate was issued without a representation vote.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union five years after his employment was terminated and he was subsequently rehired as a new employee, resulting in a loss of seniority.

The union and employer argued the complaint should be dismissed due to extreme delay.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to inquire into the complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act, finding the five-year delay to be unreasonable, unjustified, and prejudicial to the established seniority rights of other bargaining unit members.

The application was dismissed.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging that the employer's decision to lay off seven employees shortly after the union's organizing campaign was motivated by anti-union animus.

The employer contended the lay-offs were strictly due to a severe seasonal downturn in its aluminum extrusion business and the cancellation of major orders.

The Board found the employer's witnesses credible and supported by statistical evidence, concluding the lay-offs were motivated solely by bona fide business considerations.

The unfair labour practice complaint was dismissed, but the Board ordered a representation vote for the certification application.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to consider established industry practices when assigning work.

The respondents argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matter was a jurisdictional dispute that should be resolved by the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board.

The Board held that it has jurisdiction to interpret the language of the collective agreement, even if the grievance has jurisdictional overtones, and directed the matter to be listed for continuation of hearing.