Employment and Labour Law

The employer applied for reconsideration of a Board decision certifying the union, arguing that it had entered into a settlement agreement regarding the status of its taxi drivers without adequate legal advice.

The Board dismissed the application, noting that the employer was initially represented by experienced counsel who had raised the relevant issues, but the employer subsequently chose to proceed without counsel and settle the matter.

The Board held that allowing a party to resile from a settlement agreement months later due to an alleged lack of legal advice would undermine the settlement process and prejudice the union.

The union applied for certification to represent by-law enforcement officers employed by the respondent security agency.

The respondent objected, arguing the officers were members of a police force under the Police Act and thus excluded from the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the officers were not appointed by a board of commissioners of police, were not subject to its government, and were not employed in a police force.

The Board concluded the officers were not members of a police force and granted the application for certification.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of cleaning and maintenance employees.

The respondent employer argued that only the husband of a husband-and-wife superintendent team was an employee, which would result in an impermissible one-person bargaining unit.

Alternatively, the employer argued the wife was a part-time employee who should be in a separate unit.

The Board found that both spouses were employees, as they were hired as a team, shared duties, and compensation was paid directly to the wife.

The Board also rejected the argument for a separate part-time unit, finding it inappropriate to separate the spouses into different units.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent office and clerical employees of the respondent training centre.

The parties disputed whether five persons participating in a government-funded training program for office skills were employees within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that despite being in a learning situation for a limited term, the persons performed work functions for the respondent, were paid by the respondent, and were subject to statutory deductions.

The Board concluded they were employees and included them in the bargaining unit, ultimately granting the certificate.

The union and the company both referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union alleged that the company violated a letter of intent incorporated into the collective agreement by subcontracting the fabrication of vessels to a non-union shop without prior consultation or justification.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that while the company ignored the spirit of the letter of intent, the letter only suggested, rather than mandated, that fabrication work be placed in union shops or discussed with the union if placed elsewhere.

The union requested written reasons for a remedial order previously issued by the Board.

The employer argued the Board was not obligated to provide them.

The Board held that section 17 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act requires it to provide written reasons when requested by a party.

The Board briefly outlined its reasons for the remedial order, finding that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by intending not to make a collective agreement to let bargaining rights lapse, failing to reinstate striking employees who unconditionally applied to return to work, and threatening reprisal against witnesses who testified before the Board.

Dissenting opinion of Board Member F. W. Murray regarding an application for certification.

The dissenting member would have found that the persons subject to the application are not employees within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, as the rehabilitative aspect of their employment is paramount and overrides the normal trappings of an employment relationship.

The complainants, several local unions and their business representatives, alleged that the respondent International union committed an unfair labour practice by placing the Ontario District Council under trusteeship.

The complainants argued the trusteeship was a reprisal for their filing of a previous section 89 complaint (the 'EPSCA complaint') against the International.

The Board found that while there were legitimate concerns about the Council's financial practices, the International's decision to impose the trusteeship was motivated at least in part by a desire to penalize the complainants and impede their prosecution of the EPSCA complaint.

The Board held this violated section 80(2) of the Labour Relations Act and ordered the International to cease exercising control in a manner that would interfere with the EPSCA complaint.

The complainants alleged that the respondent terminated Margaret O'Connor's employment because she testified at an arbitration hearing, contrary to section 80 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent argued that an arbitration hearing is not a 'proceeding under this Act' and therefore section 80 did not apply.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that a board of arbitration or sole arbitrator is a statutory tribunal constituted under the Act, and thus a hearing before such a tribunal is a 'proceeding under this Act'.

Consequently, witnesses at arbitration hearings are protected against reprisals.

The complaint was adjourned sine die at the request of the parties.

The complainants, Local 46 and the Toronto Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council, brought a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding mechanical construction work at a Town of Vaughan project.

The work had been assigned to Simcoe Mechanical Contracting Limited, whose employees were represented by the Christian Labour Association of Canada (CLAC).

The complainants argued that area practice heavily favoured Local 46.

The Board considered various criteria, including collective bargaining relationships, skill and training, economy and efficiency, employer practice, and area practice.

While area practice favoured Local 46, the Board found that the collective bargaining relationship favoured CLAC, and that the dispute was essentially representational rather than jurisdictional.

The Board directed that the work continue to be assigned to members of CLAC.

The applicant union council sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act against M. J. Guthrie Construction Limited and Rosedale Construction, and referred a grievance under section 124.

The Board found that the two companies were under common control and direction.

Although they had operated side-by-side for over twenty years, the recent phasing out of the unionized company and the performance of its work by the non-unionized company threatened to erode existing bargaining rights.

The Board granted the section 1(4) declaration to protect these rights.

However, the Board dismissed the section 124 grievance, finding that the historical working agreement relied upon was null and void in the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector due to the provincial bargaining requirements of section 146 of the Act.

The complainant, an overhead crane operator, was sent home and issued a written warning for insubordination after refusing to move a crane.

He filed a complaint alleging the discipline violated section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, claiming he was exercising his right to refuse unsafe work under section 23.

The Board found that at the time of the refusal, the crane was stationary with its lifting device raised, posing no danger.

The Board concluded the refusal was motivated by frustration with a trainee foreman rather than genuine safety concerns.

The complaint was dismissed, with one Board member dissenting on the basis that the workplace's haphazard approach to crane safety justified the complainant's actions.

The union referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the employer failed to comply with bumping provisions in the province-wide collective agreement.

The union and the designated employer bargaining agency argued that a prior decision by the Joint Industry Committee (JIC) was final and binding.

The employer, who was not a member of the employer association, refused to comply.

The Board held that the designated bargaining agencies could not create a mechanism to impose a binding grievance settlement on an unwilling non-member employer, as their statutory authority is limited to conducting bargaining and concluding a provincial agreement.

The Board assumed jurisdiction to hear the grievance on its merits.

The applicant union was previously certified by the Board, but objecting employees were not given notice of the initial hearing.

The objecting employees argued this was a denial of natural justice and requested the proceedings be recommenced.

The Board held a second hearing to allow the objectors to make representations.

The Board found that the objectors' petition would not have affected the union's representative status even if given maximum weight.

As the objectors declined to call evidence or make substantive representations at the second hearing, the Board concluded any prejudice was cured and affirmed its decision to issue the certificates.

The union applied for certification of the respondent's employees.

The respondent argued its air freight forwarding business fell under federal jurisdiction as an integral part of interprovincial and international air transport.

The Board held that the respondent's business was a purely local undertaking, as it merely contracted with air carriers on behalf of customers and did not provide interprovincial transportation itself.

The Board assumed jurisdiction.

In an addendum, the Board found an employee petition opposing certification was voluntary and ordered a representation vote.

The applicant referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the collective agreement had expired and the applicant was no longer a party to it.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the grievance was founded on an incident that occurred during the existence of the collective agreement and was filed within the mandatory time limits.

The Board held that the right to refer the grievance to arbitration crystallized during the term of the agreement, and the matter was referred to the Registrar for listing for a further hearing.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employers committed unfair labour practices during a lawful strike.

The union claimed the employers bargained in bad faith by refusing to disclose the actual wage rates of bargaining unit employees and by bargaining directly with striking employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employers violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by withholding the wage information, which was necessary for rational and informed collective bargaining.

The Board also found that one of the employers, Globe, violated sections 64 and 67(1) by engaging in direct negotiations with a group of employees, thereby undermining the union's exclusive bargaining rights.

The Board ordered the employers to cease direct bargaining, disclose the wage rates, and resume mediation.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his authority to appoint a nominee to an arbitration board on behalf of the employer.

The employer objected to the appointment, arguing that the collective agreement only applied to the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector of the construction industry, whereas the grievances related to non-construction work.

The Board found that through its membership in the Ontario Painting Contractors Association, the employer had authorized the association to bargain on its behalf for both construction and non-construction work.

Consequently, the provincial agreement bound the employer for non-construction work as well.

The Board advised the Minister that he had the authority to appoint a nominee.

The complainant employer sought an interim order and a cease and desist order regarding a work assignment dispute between two unions over the off-loading of piping equipment.

The employer had assigned the work to the U.A. Local 463 after the Ironworkers Local 721 allegedly refused to perform work on the site.

The Ironworkers requested the Board to change the assignment.

The Board applied its established jurisprudence that an employer's assignment will be continued unless patently wrong.

Finding the assignment was made after representations from both unions, the Board directed the employer to continue assigning the work to U.A. Local 463 pending a final resolution.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of construction labourers employed by the respondent.

The respondent, a Quebec-based company, argued that its limited presence in Ontario and the application of the Quebec Construction decree made certification inappropriate.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the respondent's limited presence and the Quebec decree did not preclude certification under Ontario law.

Finding that the applicant had the requisite membership support, the Board granted the application and issued certificates for the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector and all other sectors in the appropriate geographic area.