Employment and Labour Law

The applicant union requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision that declined to enforce a collective agreement under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union argued the Board exceeded its jurisdiction and applied equitable principles it did not possess.

The Board denied the request, clarifying that it did not strike down the agreement using equitable relief, but rather refused to recognize a collective bargaining relationship because the agreement was obtained through an unlawful strike intended to bypass the Act's certification procedures.

One Board member dissented.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated section 43 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to provide the names of employees for whom union dues were deducted.

The employer argued it was only required to remit an undifferentiated lump sum.

The Board held that the statutory obligation to deduct dues from 'each employee' implicitly requires the employer to identify the specific employees, the amounts deducted, and any arrears.

The employer was directed to provide this information to the union on a monthly basis.

The applicant, the sole employee in the bargaining unit, applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

The union argued that a bargaining unit must consist of more than one employee for a termination application to be brought.

The Board rejected this argument, finding that a single employee can apply for termination.

However, the Board dismissed the application because the employer had been actively involved in its inception and preparation, making it impossible to conclude that the application was a truly voluntary expression of the employee's wishes.

The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1190 applied for certification shortly before the terminal date of a competing application by the Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183.

Due to an administrative error, the Board failed to process Local 1190's application and certified Local 183.

Eight months later, Local 1190 requested reconsideration and revocation of Local 183's certificate.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that Local 1190 failed to act with due diligence in pursuing its application, while Local 183 had actively relied on its certificate to seek a collective agreement.

Balancing the interests, the Board concluded that revoking the certificate would cause greater prejudice to Local 183.

The applicant union applied for certification to displace the incumbent union as the bargaining agent for a comprehensive unit of outside workers.

After the applicant won a pre-hearing representation vote, a group of skilled tradespeople objected, seeking to be carved out into a separate bargaining unit represented by the incumbent union.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the existing comprehensive unit had a long history of successful collective bargaining and that fragmenting it was not justified.

A certificate was issued to the applicant for the comprehensive unit.

The applicant union applied for certification for employees of Harwill Originals Limited.

The respondents argued that Harwill and Rosengarten Freedman Knitting Co. Ltd. should be treated as a single employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

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

To avoid undue fragmentation, the Board declared them a single employer and combined their employees into one bargaining unit.

Because the union had membership support of less than forty-five per cent in the combined unit, the application for certification was dismissed.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers should be removed from certain designated employee bargaining agencies in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector.

The local unions argued that the International Association had not historically participated in bargaining and had expressly disclaimed liability under the provincial agreements.

The Board held that the International Association should remain part of the designations, as its involvement could provide a beneficial overview and maturity to the provincial bargaining process, fulfilling the intent of the legislation.

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

Both parties agreed to this proposed unit.

However, the Board noted a policy against the fragmentation of bargaining units, given the existing multiplicity of bargaining relationships between the respondent and various unions.

The Board rejected the agreed-upon unit and instead found that a 'tag end' unit, consisting of all employees not currently covered by existing collective agreements or certifications, was the appropriate bargaining unit.

A Labour Relations Officer was directed to inquire into the list of employees in this unit.

The union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine whether certain individuals working for the respondent exercised managerial functions and were thus excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board found that the fixer-foremen did not exercise managerial responsibilities, as their direction of other employees was purely incidental to their primary concern of maintaining machines.

However, the Board concluded that the quality control supervisor did exercise managerial functions, noting her historical exclusion from the unit and her involvement in actions that could adversely impact fellow employees.

The applicant employer bargaining agency alleged that during a province-wide strike in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector of the construction industry, the respondent affiliated bargaining agents continued to supply union members to certain contractors.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the supply of men during a province-wide strike constituted an unlawful arrangement contrary to section 146(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also held that trade unions have an ongoing obligation under section 148(1) to take reasonable steps to ensure that a strike is called and authorized uniformly, and that the respondents breached this duty by permitting members to work.

Cease and desist orders were issued.

The applicant union sought leave to withdraw its second application for certification.

The respondent employer requested that the Board impose a bar on future applications pursuant to section 103 of the Labour Relations Act, arguing that the employees had been subjected to an atmosphere of certification and relying on a Board Officer's alleged statement that a bar would apply.

The Board dismissed the application for certification but declined to impose a bar, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify departing from its usual practice of not imposing a bar after a second unsuccessful application that did not proceed to a hearing.

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

The union filed membership evidence for more than 55% of the employees.

A group of employees filed a statement of desire opposing the certification, which included signatures from employees who had previously signed union cards.

The Board found that the statement of desire was not voluntary, as it was circulated by lead hands and a close friend of management shortly after management held a meeting suggesting that unionization could lead to the loss of benefits and lay-offs.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and issued a certificate to the applicant.

One Board member dissented.

The applicants sought a declaration and cease-and-desist order against the respondent union for engaging in site-wide picketing during a lawful province-wide strike in the ICI sector.

The picketing caused employees of other trades, who were not in a legal strike position, to refuse to cross the picket lines, effectively halting all construction activity in the Sarnia area.

The Board found that while the respondent was engaged in a lawful strike, picketing directed at employees of employers unconnected to the dispute (other than by geography) constituted secondary picketing that caused an unlawful strike.

The Board ordered the respondent to cease picketing at common sites unless reserved gates were established or struck work was being performed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing certification, but the union subsequently filed counter-petitions reaffirming support for the union.

The Board found the counter-petitions to be a voluntary expression of employee wishes, despite a gap in the evidence regarding their custody prior to mailing.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and certified the union, with one Board member dissenting.

The complainants filed a complaint regarding a work assignment dispute under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act.

The collective agreement required such disputes to be referred to the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board (IJDB).

The complainants argued the IJDB was no longer operating, but failed to provide evidence or actually refer the matter to it.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that under section 91(14) of the Act, it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint because the parties had mutually selected a tribunal to resolve the dispute and that process had not been frustrated.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The parties agreed to two separate bargaining units, one excluding mechanics and one excluding school bus drivers.

The Board expressed concern that this could result in undue fragmentation of the respondent's workforce.

The Board directed a pre-hearing representation vote using the first unit as the voting constituency, but permitted mechanics to cast segregated ballots.

A hearing was scheduled to follow the vote to determine the appropriate bargaining unit and address the respondent's request to bar the application.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent electricians and apprentices employed by the respondent in the construction industry, seeking to displace the incumbent union.

The respondent and intervener argued the voting constituency should match the existing collective agreement, while the applicant argued it must comply with section 144(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ruled that the voting constituency must be described in terms compatible with section 144(1) and directed a representation vote.

The applicant, a university professor, applied under section 47 of the Labour Relations Act for an exemption from paying mandatory union dues to the faculty association on the basis of his religious beliefs.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the three-part Wybinga test.

While the Board accepted that the applicant held sincere religious beliefs, it found that his objections to the union were primarily socio-political, relating to the adversarial nature of unions in a university setting and the impact of strikes on students.

The majority concluded that the applicant was rationalizing his general objections to trade unions in terms of his religious beliefs, and dismissed the application.

One member dissented, finding the religious objection bona fide.

The applicant union applied for certification of a part-time support staff unit at the respondent's hospital in Wiarton.

The respondent argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should also include employees at a recently acquired hospital in Lion's Head, citing common administration and a small float team of employees working at both locations.

The Board rejected the respondent's argument, noting its normal practice of defining bargaining units by municipal boundaries and the lack of organizing interest at the Lion's Head facility.

The Board found the Wiarton-only unit appropriate and, satisfied that more than 55% of the employees were union members, ordered a certificate to issue.

The applicant employer applied under section 59 of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration that the respondent union no longer represented its employees, alleging a failure to bargain.

The union had been certified in November 1979 and sent a notice to bargain, but failed to follow up or commence bargaining for over two years.

The union argued the application was untimely because it had recently requested the appointment of a conciliation officer.

The Board found the application timely as no officer had yet been appointed when it was filed.

Given the union's prolonged inactivity without justifiable reason, the Board ordered a representation vote to determine if the employees still wished to be represented by the union.