Employment and Labour Law

The applicant unions filed pre-hearing displacement applications for certification.

The intervener incumbent union argued the applications were untimely because the Inflation Restraint Act extended the existing collective agreements, thereby closing the 'open period' under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that section 13 of the Inflation Restraint Act extended the collective agreements beyond their normal expiry dates, rendering the applications untimely.

The Board also rejected the argument that this extension violated the freedom of association under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applications were dismissed.

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

The respondent and the intervener union argued the application was untimely because they had entered into an 'all employee' collective agreement that covered the labourers.

The Board found that the intervener had only been certified to represent equipment operators and did not represent a majority of the labourers when the broader collective agreement was signed.

The Board declared under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act that the intervener was not entitled to represent the labourers, setting aside the collective agreement as it applied to them.

The Board then found the applicant had filed sufficient membership evidence and granted the application for certification.

The employer filed complaints alleging the union violated the Labour Relations Act by calling an unlawful strike and breaching a prior settlement agreement.

A union business agent had instructed employees to remain in the cafeteria for 15 minutes past their break to resolve a dispute between managers.

The Board assumed a technical breach of the Act but declined to issue a remedy, noting the stoppage was brief, unpremeditated, and resolved the underlying issue.

The Board also found no clear violation of the settlement agreement.

The complaints were dismissed.

The applicant employee applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights under section 57 of the Labour Relations Act.

The application was supported by a petition signed by employees.

However, the petition was initiated and circulated by a working foreman who had supervisory responsibilities and was perceived to have the authority to recommend discipline.

The Board found that due to the foreman's significant involvement, the petition could not be accepted as a voluntary expression of the employees' wishes.

The application for decertification was therefore dismissed.

During a certification application, the respondent's counsel failed to appear after an adjournment request was refused.

The applicant sought to introduce alleged prior statements of an absent witness as admissions against interest, which the Board refused due to their prejudicial value.

The applicant also requested the Board to certify facts to the Supreme Court for a bench warrant to enforce subpoenas against two absent witnesses.

The Board declined, ruling that the applicant must take responsibility for enforcing its own subpoenas.

The applicant union sought to certify a bargaining unit of registered nurses at the respondent's nursing home.

The respondent argued that all its nurses exercised managerial functions and were therefore excluded from collective bargaining under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board reviewed the duties of the nurses, including their supervisory, disciplinary, and evaluative roles over lesser-skilled staff.

The Board concluded that the nurses' functions were primarily professional and coordinating in nature, rather than managerial, as they lacked effective control over the employment status of other employees.

The Board found the nurses to be employees within the meaning of the Act and granted the certification.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union over two and a half years after she was discharged by her employer.

Following her discharge, the union declined to file a grievance, and the complainant pursued remedies against the employer through the Human Rights Commission and the courts.

The Board dismissed the complaint without inquiring into the merits, finding that the extreme delay prejudiced the union and that the complainant's pursuit of other remedies against the employer did not justify the delay in proceeding against the union.

The applicant union applied for certification for two bargaining units of the respondent's employees.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and determined that the two proposed bargaining units were appropriate.

A statement of desire objecting to the certification was received after the terminal date and was not supported by any appearances at the hearing, so it was not considered.

For the first bargaining unit, the union demonstrated 56.41% membership support.

The Board declined the respondent's request to direct a representation vote, noting that the union's support exceeded the 55% threshold and no special circumstances warranted a vote.

A certificate was issued for the first unit.

The application for the second unit was dismissed as the union had less than 45% support.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent registered and graduate nurses at the respondent's nursing home.

The respondent argued the nurses performed managerial functions and were excluded from the Labour Relations Act under section 1(3)(b).

The Board found that while the nurses exercised professional supervisory and reporting functions, true managerial authority regarding discipline, assessment, scheduling, and hiring rested with the Director of Nursing.

The Board concluded the nurses were employees within the meaning of the Act and granted the certification application.

In an application for certification, a representation vote was held.

The day before the vote, the employer laid off a significant number of employees due to the completion of a contract.

The ballots of the laid-off employees were segregated.

The union protested the segregation.

The Board held that employees on indefinite lay-off are generally ineligible to vote, but those with substantial and legitimate expectations of being recalled in the near future should not be disenfranchised.

The Board directed that the ballots of 11 laid-off employees who had returned to work or had a clear expectation of recall be counted, while the remaining 17 segregated ballots were not to be counted.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices by terminating a student employee who was an active union supporter.

The employee had requested a Saturdays-only schedule, which the employer claimed was unavailable.

After the employee mentioned the union in a meeting regarding his schedule, he was immediately terminated.

The Board found that the employer failed to discharge the reverse onus of proving the termination was free from anti-union motivation, violating section 66 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also found that the employer violated the section 79(1) statutory freeze by unilaterally altering the employee's privilege to work available Saturday hours.

The Board ordered reinstatement with compensation.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent carpenters employed by the respondent.

The respondent challenged the union's membership evidence, alleging it was obtained through false statements.

The Board found the membership evidence valid, noting the employees voluntarily signed the applications and paid the required fee.

A statement of desire opposing the union was also filed, but the Board declined to give it weight, finding it was not a voluntary expression of the employee's wishes due to management influence.

The Board granted the application and issued a certificate to the applicant.

The union filed grievances under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act alleging that the respondent employer breached the collective agreement by subcontracting concrete forming work to employers who used members of the Labourers' union rather than the Carpenters' union.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the matter was essentially a jurisdictional dispute and that the Board should defer to the section 91 jurisdictional dispute mechanism.

The Board adjourned the section 124 proceedings for 21 days to allow the respondent to file a jurisdictional dispute, noting that the panel seized with the jurisdictional dispute would be the more appropriate forum to resolve all aspects of the case.

The complainants, dependent contractor owner-operators, alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

Facing a severe economic downturn and shrinking work volume, a majority of the bargaining unit voted to re-open the collective agreement to replace a work-sharing (no-layoff) provision with a provision allowing layoffs by reverse order of seniority.

This resulted in the layoff of the complainants.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union's decision to abandon work-sharing in favour of seniority-based layoffs was objectively justified by the deteriorating economic conditions and was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint under section 78 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, alleging that the grievor was dealt with contrary to section 76.

The respondents raised preliminary matters, arguing that the Board should defer to grievance arbitration.

The Board applied its established principles for deferral, noting the mature collective bargaining relationship and that the dispute was primarily contractual in nature.

The Board deferred to the arbitration process and adjourned the complaint sine die for up to one year, retaining jurisdiction to ensure the arbitration outcome is fair and not repugnant to the Act.

The applicant employee applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights under section 59(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The union had failed to give the employer notice to bargain within sixty days following certification.

The union did not file a reply and failed to appear at the hearing.

The Board found that the union had slept on its bargaining rights and provided no explanation for its failure to exercise them.

The Board exercised its discretion to terminate the union's bargaining rights without a representation vote.

In an application for certification, the Ontario Labour Relations Board considered whether to accept membership evidence for two employees who had their one-dollar application fee paid by a co-worker.

The Board found that the employees had no intention of repaying the co-worker, meaning there was no financial sacrifice on their part, and therefore rejected their membership evidence.

However, the Board declined to reject the remaining membership evidence collected by the union representative, as he believed the loans were bona fide, and also declined to reject all evidence on the basis of insufficient inquiries by the Form 8 declarant.

The applicant, a university professor, applied for an exemption from paying mandatory union dues on religious grounds under section 47 of the Labour Relations Act.

He argued that his religious beliefs, which emphasize individual responsibility and reject coercion, prevented him from supporting the faculty association.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's long-standing opposition to the union was based on professional concerns about academic standards and collegiality, rather than religious conviction.

The applicant union sought certification without a representation vote under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging contraventions by the respondent employer.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and filed Minutes of Settlement.

The Board accepted the settlement, found the applicant to be a trade union, defined the appropriate bargaining unit, and directed that a representation vote be taken.

The Board also ordered the respondent to post a notice to employees regarding their rights under the Act and the terms of the settlement.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices by laying off all employees and subsequently failing to recall five specific employees, including the primary union organizer, shortly after receiving notice of an application for certification.

The employer argued the lay-off was necessitated by severe financial difficulties, lack of orders, and a demand for advance payment from a supplier.

The Board found that the employer met the reverse onus under section 89(5) of the Labour Relations Act, establishing on a balance of probabilities that the lay-off and the decisions not to recall the specific employees were motivated by legitimate business considerations and employee performance, not anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed.