Employment and Labour Law

The complainant alleged that the respondent failed to pay industry fund assessments required by the provincial collective agreement, contrary to section 147(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent admitted liability for the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector but argued that the complainant's delay in filing the complaint should limit its liability.

The Board found that the violation was of a continuing nature.

However, because the legal enforceability of such claims was uncertain until a specific Board decision in July 1980, the Board limited the respondent's liability to assessments that became due from August 1980 onwards.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of carpenters employed by the respondent in the construction industry.

The central issue was whether several employees should be classified as carpenters or labourers, given that they performed multiple types of work.

The majority of the Board relied on the respondent's coding system to determine that only four employees spent the majority of their time performing carpentry work during the representative period.

Because the union only filed membership evidence for one of those four employees, it lacked the requisite 45% support, and the application was dismissed.

A dissenting Board member argued that the coding system was unreliable and would have found sufficient membership support to grant certification.

The Canadian Paperworkers Union applied for certification to represent employees at Cooper Corrugated Containers Ltd. A group of employees filed a petition opposing the certification.

The Board held a hearing to determine the voluntariness of the petition.

The Board found the testimony of the petition's originator lacked credibility and failed to establish that the petition was a voluntary expression of the employees' true wishes.

Consequently, the Board declined to order a representation vote and granted interim certification to the union.

The applicant union requested a determination under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act regarding the employee status of certain individuals.

The respondent employer objected, arguing the union was seeking to alter an established status quo.

The Board found that a question had arisen between the parties that could not be resolved during collective bargaining, fitting squarely within section 106(2).

The Board appointed a Board Officer to inquire into the duties and responsibilities of the disputed individuals, noting that historical agreements on bargaining unit configuration do not freeze the unit in perpetuity, though they may be relevant evidence.

The respondent union, Local 786, requested that the Board reconsider its previous decision finding the union liable for an unlawful strike and assessing damages of $18,795.00.

The union argued that the Board departed from established legal principles regarding union liability and agency, and failed to properly consider evidence relating to damages.

The Board reviewed the arbitral jurisprudence on union liability for unlawful strikes, reaffirming that union officials have a positive duty to avert and end unlawful strikes.

The Board found that the union's business agent failed to take adequate steps to prevent the strike despite clear warning signs.

The Board also upheld its assessment of damages, finding that the employer's calculation of overtime costs incurred to make up for the strike delay was reasonable.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of bricklayers and stonemasons employed by the respondent municipality.

The respondent argued that an existing collective agreement with the intervener union covered these employees and acted as a bar to the application, seeking to introduce extrinsic evidence of negotiations to prove this intent.

The Board held that the collective agreement, which defined employees as those on the active payroll and lacked construction industry provisions, clearly did not cover construction bricklayers.

Finding no patent or latent ambiguity in the agreement, the Board refused to admit the extrinsic evidence.

The applicant employees applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union argued that the petition supporting the application was defective because its wording suggested signing was compulsory.

The Board found that the petition, read as a whole with the attached Form 17, clearly gave employees a choice to sign in favour of or against termination.

The Board concluded the petition was voluntary, free from employer influence, and supported by at least 45 per cent of the bargaining unit.

A representation vote was ordered.

The applicant applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union argued the petition was involuntary, relying on a previous Board decision involving the same employer where a different petition was found to be tainted by employer payment of legal fees.

The Board found no evidence connecting the current petition to the previous lawyer or any employer interference.

The Board concluded the petition was voluntary and directed a representation vote.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his authority to appoint a single arbitrator under section 45 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer objected to the appointment, arguing that the grievance concerning a safety and attendance bonus arose after the expiry of both the collective agreement and the statutory freeze period.

The trade union contended that the right to the bonus accrued during the agreement and freeze period.

The Board advised the Minister that he has the authority to appoint an arbitrator, as the arbitrator has the jurisdiction to interpret the collective agreement and determine whether the grievance is arbitrable and valid.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of occasional teachers.

Following a representation vote in which the union was successful, a group of objecting employees sought to have the vote set aside.

The objectors argued that a clerical error in the street address on the Notice of Taking of Vote, the use of segregated ballots, and the application of the Board's thirty-day rule compromised the vote.

The Board dismissed the objections, finding no evidence that the address error prevented anyone from voting or that the segregation of ballots departed from usual practice.

The Board declined to direct a new vote and ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant union brought applications under sections 1(4) and 63 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that a newly formed construction company, Chartex, was either a successor to or under common control with Metro Century and Leaseholds.

Metro Century had ceased active operations due to financial difficulties, and a former employee incorporated Chartex.

The Board found that Chartex only acquired minor assets from Metro Century and was a new, independent business rather than a continuation of the predecessor's business.

The Board also concluded that Chartex was not sufficiently functionally integrated with Leaseholds to justify a related employer declaration.

Both applications were dismissed.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights during what would normally be the open period of the collective agreement.

The respondent union argued the application was untimely because the Inflation Restraint Act, 1982 extended the collective agreement for one year, thereby postponing the open period.

The Board applied its previous reasoning in Broadway Manor, finding that the statutory extension of the agreement closed the open period for termination applications.

The Board also rejected arguments that the Inflation Restraint Act violated the freedom of association under the Charter.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The union filed a grievance and requested the Minister to appoint an arbitrator under section 45 of the Labour Relations Act.

Subsequently, the employer referred the same grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124.

The Minister referred the question of his authority to appoint an arbitrator to the Board.

The Board held that because the employer was entitled to refer the grievance under section 124, and because the Board's jurisdiction under section 124 was established before the Minister appointed an arbitrator under section 45, the Board had exclusive jurisdiction.

Furthermore, any conflict between the two sections is resolved by section 118, which provides that the construction industry provisions (section 124) prevail.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer failed to bargain in good faith.

The employer failed to appear at the hearing.

The Board found the employer contravened section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to provide wage information, reneging on previously agreed language regarding union dues check-off, and pressing illegal demands to impasse, including a demand for employee ratification.

The Board also found the employer's request for a section 40 final offer vote was unlawful as it was used to avoid the duty to bargain.

The Board directed the employer to execute a collective agreement containing the agreed-upon terms.

The applicant trade union sought certification for the office and field staff of the respondent trade union.

The respondent raised preliminary objections, arguing that the applicant was barred under section 13 of the Labour Relations Act because it is an 'employer' and that its constitution precluded the respondent's field staff from membership due to potential jurisdictional conflicts.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objections, finding that the potential for future jurisdictional conflict was too remote to trigger the section 13 bar and that the applicant's constitution did not explicitly prohibit membership.

The Board appointed an officer to inquire into the appropriate bargaining unit.

The complainant filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the respondent union and its officials violated sections 3, 68, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act by wrongfully cancelling his union membership.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaints for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the motion and dismissed the complaints, finding that section 3 does not create a substantive offence, section 68 only applies to employees in a bargaining unit (which the complainant was not), and section 70 requires an element of intimidation or coercion to compel a person, which was not alleged in the mere cancellation of membership.

The applicant trade union requested the Ontario Labour Relations Board to reconsider and revoke its earlier decision finding that the applicant was an affiliated bargaining agent and therefore subject to the provincial bargaining regime in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector.

The applicant argued that the Board misinterpreted sections 137(1)(a) and 146(2) of the Labour Relations Act and relied on grounds not argued before it.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, affirming its interpretation that the applicant, as a newly chartered local of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, was an affiliated bargaining agent bound by the provincial bargaining regime and could not conclude a lawful collective agreement outside of it in the ICI sector.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union failed to comply with the terms of a written settlement resolving earlier complaints under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the union breached the settlement by failing to actively support the Employment Standards Officer's position before a Referee regarding an equal pay claim, and by failing to promptly process a member's grievance and ensure the membership decided whether to arbitrate it.

The Board issued a declaration of non-compliance and ordered the union to hold a special membership meeting to vote on arbitrating the grievance.

The applicant union alleged that the appointment of a court-appointed receiver and manager of a nursing home constituted a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, making the receiver and the secured creditor successor employers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that a receiver and manager merely acts as an officer of the court to manage the business on behalf of creditors, and no disposition or transfer of the business occurred until the assets were subsequently sold to a third-party purchaser.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under s. 107 of the Labour Relations Act regarding his authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The issue turned on whether a collective agreement was in operation between the employer and the trade union.

The parties had signed a memorandum of agreement but had a mutual mistake regarding the inclusion of a cost-of-living allowance (C.O.L.A.) clause.

Upon realizing the misunderstanding, the employer withdrew its offer before the union membership ratified it.

The Board held that the memorandum was merely an offer that was legally and properly withdrawn prior to ratification.

Consequently, no collective agreement was in operation, and the Minister had the authority to appoint a conciliation officer.