Employment and Labour Law

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

The union challenged the voluntariness of the petition, alleging management involvement because the applicant was the sister of a supervisor.

The Board found that the applicant was not perceived as an agent of management and that the petition was voluntary.

A representation vote was ordered.

Following a finding that the employer unlawfully discharged a union president, a hearing was held to determine the quantum of compensation.

The employer disputed the employee's entitlement to lost overtime pay and failed to appear at the hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board awarded the employee $200.61 for lost overtime.

However, the majority of the Board declined the union's request for costs, reaffirming its policy that costs are generally not awarded in Board proceedings, despite the employer's non-appearance.

One Board member dissented, arguing that the employer's flagrant disregard for the Board's process warranted a full costs award.

The applicant union filed a construction industry certification application.

The respondent, a non-profit service organization, argued it was not the 'employer' of the workers on its recreation centre project, asserting that the federal and provincial governments funding the project under 'make-work' programs were the true employers or joint venturers.

The Board applied the York Condominium tests to determine employer status.

Despite the government funding and controls, the Board found that the respondent exercised fundamental control over the incidents of employment and was therefore the employer within the meaning of section 117(c) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicants referred a grievance to the Board for arbitration.

At the hearing, the applicants argued that a binding settlement had been reached between counsel prior to the hearing.

The respondent argued that its supervisor lacked the authority to instruct counsel to settle without the president's approval.

The Board held that where counsel holds themselves out as having authority to settle, and the other party has no notice of any limitation on that authority, the settlement is binding.

The Board found that a settlement was reached and ordered its implementation.

The applicants filed an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union's counsel subsequently informed the Board that the union did not desire to continue representing the employees, leading the Board to terminate the bargaining rights under section 57(5) of the Labour Relations Act.

The union then requested a reconsideration, claiming its initial letter was based on inaccurate information and citing defects in the notice to employees.

The Board dismissed the request, holding that the union had unequivocally abandoned its rights and could not resile from the consequences of its hasty decision.

The complainant, a welder-fitter, was indefinitely laid off by his employer, which was intended as a permanent discharge.

The union declined to file a grievance on his behalf.

The complainant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union official's investigation was superficial and that he failed to ask the complainant for his side of the story before concluding a grievance would be futile.

The Board held that the union acted arbitrarily and breached its duty of fair representation, ordering the union to file and process a grievance to arbitration.

The applicant union sought certification for a craft unit of ironworkers.

The intervener union claimed the application was untimely because the work performed by the ironworkers was covered by its own provincial agreement.

The Board held that certification proceedings are not the appropriate forum for resolving work jurisdiction disputes.

As the intervener did not claim to represent any employees in the proposed bargaining unit, it lacked status to intervene or request an adjournment.

The intervention was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A dispute arose regarding the composition of the bargaining unit, specifically whether engineering staff should be included.

The Board appointed an officer to inquire into the bargaining unit composition and the managerial status of certain employees.

The applicant union objected to the continued participation of employee objectors, arguing their standing was limited to the voluntariness of their petition.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that the rules of natural justice and the Board's procedures entitle affected employees to notice and an opportunity to make representations on all issues in a certification application, not just membership support.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent unrepresented trades employed by the respondent in Board Area #5.

The respondent requested that casual employees who regularly work outside the area be excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board declined to depart from its long-standing practice of not distinguishing between casual and regular employees in the construction industry.

Finding that more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit were members of the applicant, the Board ordered that a certificate issue.

The applicant union applied for certification of full-time and part-time employees.

A pre-hearing representation vote was held.

For the part-time unit, no ballots were cast, and the application was dismissed.

For the full-time unit, the union won the vote.

A group of employees objected, claiming they were not given an opportunity to vote and were misinformed by supervisory personnel.

The Board dismissed the objection without hearing evidence, finding that even if the allegations were true, the employees had adequate notice of the vote through posted forms and failed to direct their inquiries to the Returning Officer as instructed.

The Board certified the union for the full-time unit.

The applicant union, Carpenters Local 1030, applied for certification to represent a unit of construction labourers employed by the respondent outside the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector.

The intervener union, Labourers Local 527, argued that the applicant was prohibited from bringing such an application under section 144(3) of the Labour Relations Act and from entering into a collective agreement under section 146(2).

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the Act does not restrict the applicant from bringing an application for non-ICI construction labourers.

Finding that both unions had filed sufficient membership evidence, the Board ordered a representation vote to determine which union would represent the employees.

The complainant school board alleged that a mass resignation by summer school principals, vice-principals, and curriculum resource teachers constituted an unlawful strike under the Labour Relations Act, and that the teachers' union encouraged it.

The union had issued a 'pink letter' advising members not to accept summer positions due to a collective bargaining impasse.

The Board found that the resignees were employees who had already commenced preparatory duties, and their coordinated resignations to exert bargaining pressure amounted to an unlawful strike.

The Board issued a cease and desist direction against the union and its District 16 president for counselling and supporting the unlawful strike.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union regarding its failure to assist her after she was terminated.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the complainant was incapable of returning to work, the complaint did not make out a prima facie case, and there was excessive delay in filing.

The Board dismissed the preliminary motion, finding that the factual disputes required a hearing and that the delay, while significant, did not cause real prejudice to the respondents.

The Board noted that any remedy could be adjusted to account for the delay.

The applicant union sought certification for a production unit, arguing that engineering department employees lacked a community of interest and should be excluded.

The respondent employer sought to include them, citing future plans for engineering personnel to perform substantial work on the shop floor.

The Board initially ruled that evidence of community of interest must be confined to circumstances existing on the application date.

Upon the employer's request for reconsideration, the Board revoked its ruling, holding that in the unique circumstances of the case, the employer could adduce evidence of future shop work, with its relevance and weight to be determined later.

The applicant union referred two grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the discharge and lay-off of the grievor.

The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the grievances had been settled orally prior to the hearing.

The evidence showed that the union and employer had reached an oral agreement on all substantive terms, which the grievor initially accepted but later repudiated by refusing to sign the written minutes of settlement.

The Board held that a binding oral settlement had been reached and that the execution of written minutes was merely procedural.

Consequently, the Board found the grievances were no longer arbitrable and dismissed them.

Two unions, Local 1190 and Local 183, filed competing applications for certification regarding the respondent employer.

A representation vote was held, which Local 1190 won.

Subsequently, Local 1190 withdrew its application and membership evidence.

Local 183 argued it should be certified despite losing the vote, alleging improper collusive behaviour between the employer and Local 1190.

The Board dismissed Local 183's application, noting it did not win the representation vote and the Board had not heard all evidence regarding the allegations of improper conduct.

The Board also declined to impose the usual six-month bar on the unsuccessful unions due to the significant time that had elapsed since the vote.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to provide him with a lawyer at his arbitration hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, holding that a union official representing a grievor need not be a lawyer.

The Board found that the complainant failed to establish that the union official made any reckless, flagrant, or capricious mistake, or failed to give proper attention to the case.

In a consolidated application for certification and unfair labour practice complaint, the union requested that the employer be directed to proceed first due to the reverse onus provisions of section 89(5) of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer argued that the union should proceed first, consistent with the Board's past practice in section 8 applications.

The Board exercised its discretion and directed the employer to proceed first, noting that the bulk of the evidence would relate to the section 89 allegations for which the employer bears the legal burden.

Board Member Wightman dissented, arguing that the existing practice of requiring the union to proceed first should be maintained.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss a duty of fair representation complaint on the grounds of delay, failure to disclose a prima facie case, and insufficient particulars.

The Board found that the eight-month delay was not 'extreme' enough to warrant outright dismissal without hearing the merits, though the issue of unreasonable delay affecting the remedy remained open.

The Board also held that the complaint disclosed a prima facie case, as the allegations of arbitrary and discriminatory conduct could theoretically support a breach of section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

However, the Board agreed that the complaint lacked sufficient particulars and ordered the complainants to provide further details before the matter proceeded to a hearing on the merits.

The complainants, employees of Manor Cleaners Ltd., filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation and violated the Labour Relations Act.

The union failed to meet with employees during the bargaining process and required employees to sign union cards and pay initiation fees to participate in a strike vote.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the union violated sections 68 and 72(5) of the Act.

The Board ordered the union to convene meetings with employees, provide copies of the collective agreement, and refrain from excluding non-members from future strike or ratification votes.