Employment and Labour Law

The complainant union filed a complaint concerning a work assignment at a nuclear generating station, claiming the maintenance and repair of small construction equipment should be assigned to its members rather than the respondent union.

The Board found that the respondent union had been performing the work for a year prior to a mark-up meeting where the work was inadvertently assigned to the complainant.

Applying the criteria of area practice and the policy of not disturbing long-standing assignments, the Board affirmed the assignment of the work to the respondent union.

The union brought an application under section 63 and a complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act against two banks and their privately appointed receivers following the insolvency of Windsor Packing Company Limited.

The union argued that the receivers were successor employers and were liable for unpaid union dues and other collective agreement obligations.

The Board held that the private appointment of a receiver-manager does not constitute a sale or transfer of a business under section 63.

However, the Board found that the receiver, acting as an agent of the insolvent company, violated section 64 by failing to deduct and remit union dues and ignoring the collective agreement while employing bargaining unit members to wind down operations.

The receiver was ordered to pay the union dues for the period it acted as the employer.

The complainant filed a complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging he was discharged for raising a safety concern.

The parties reached a written settlement agreement during a meeting with a Labour Relations Officer, under which the complainant was to be reinstated without back pay.

The respondent's president subsequently vetoed the settlement and refused to reinstate the complainant.

The Board found that the respondent's representative had the authority to settle the complaint and that the settlement was binding.

The Board ordered the respondent to comply with the settlement by reinstating the complainant and compensating him for wages and benefits lost due to the breach.

The applicant union sought certification without a representation vote under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent employer contravened the Act by supporting an intervener employee association.

The Board found that the employer had contravened section 64 by participating in the formation and administration of the employee association to thwart the union's organizing campaign.

However, the Board declined to grant automatic certification, concluding that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained through a representation vote if accompanied by substantial remedial measures, including union access to the workplace and the posting of notices.

The complainants, employees at the respondent's plant, refused to work due to the smell of gasoline fumes.

The respondent sent the refusing employees home without pay pending a Ministry of Labour investigation.

One complainant, Arnold, alleged he was intimidated by his foreman who repeatedly ordered him back to work and threatened to stop his pay.

The Board found that the respondent violated section 24(1)(d) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by intimidating Arnold, as the foreman's actions negated his statutory right to refuse unsafe work.

However, the Board dismissed the complaint regarding the loss of pay for the other refusers, finding that sending them home was a practical response to a lack of work and not a penalty under section 24(1)(c).

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit consisting of 9 maintenance department employees at the respondent hospital.

The Board considered whether to depart from its normal policy against departmental certification in favour of a larger service employee unit.

Finding no reason to deviate from its policy against unnecessary fragmentation of the workplace, the Board determined that the broader service unit was appropriate.

As the applicant agreed its application would fail if the broader unit was deemed appropriate, the application was dismissed.

The applicant trade union sought certification for a bargaining unit of circulation and mailing room employees at the respondent's newspaper.

The parties agreed on the description of the departmental bargaining unit.

The Board noted its historical practice of deferring to the agreement of parties in the newspaper industry regarding departmental units, provided they are not patently irrational or unworkable.

Finding no reason to disregard the agreement and being satisfied with the membership evidence, the Board found the unit appropriate and granted the certificate.

The applicant union filed a grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

At the scheduled hearing, the respondent employer failed to appear.

Two principals of the respondent company, who had been properly served with subpoenas and conduct money by the applicant, also failed to attend.

The applicant requested bench warrants for their arrest.

The Board, relying on its powers under section 103(2)(a) of the Act to enforce the attendance of witnesses in the same manner as a court of record in civil cases, issued warrants for the arrest of the two defaulting witnesses and adjourned the hearing.

The respondent requested the substitution of a Board Officer appointed to inquire into the duties and responsibilities of certain employees, alleging bias, and sought a hearing to establish this bias.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the request, noting that a Board Officer merely compiles a verbatim transcript of evidence and makes no findings of fact or law.

The Board found no indication that the alleged bias affected the transcript and directed the examination to continue.

The complainants alleged they were indefinitely laid off because of their support for a union during an organizing campaign, contrary to sections 66 and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer argued the layoffs were strictly due to the loss of a major assembly contract with General Motors.

The Board found no evidence of an organized plan to protect anti-union employees or any anti-union animus connected to the layoffs.

The employer successfully demonstrated that the layoffs were motivated by legitimate business reasons.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicants filed an application under section 57 of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration terminating the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The respondent argued the application was untimely under section 12 of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act and section 57 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that because the employer is a hospital and a conciliation officer had been appointed, an application for termination can only be made during the open period of a collective agreement.

As no collective agreement had yet been concluded, the application was untimely.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing pursuant to Rule 71.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union, alleging arbitrary conduct during a 1980 arbitration hearing regarding his discharge.

The Board declined to inquire into the complaint due to substantial undue delay, noting the events occurred three years prior and the complainant failed to provide an adequate explanation for the delay.

Furthermore, the Board found the complaint did not make out a prima facie case, as the union had provided an experienced grievance officer and subsequently sought judicial review of the unfavourable arbitration award.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of a business occurred under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act when a receiver entered into an interim management agreement with a numbered company to operate the insolvent predecessor's trucking business pending a final sale.

The numbered company applied the collective agreement of a competing union to the employees.

The Board distinguished prior cases where a receiver operated a business solely as agent for the debtor, finding that the numbered company operated the business for its own profit subject to a fixed monthly fee.

The Board declared that a sale of a business had taken place, entitling the applicant to give notice to bargain, and amended the competing union's collective agreement to exclude the predecessor's business.

The complainant applied for a resolution of a dispute over the implementation of a previous Board order that directed the union to submit his discharge to arbitration.

The complainant sought to be represented by a lawyer of his own choosing at the union's expense, rather than by the union's representative.

The Board held that this request did not raise a matter of implementation, but rather sought a remedy that had already been refused in the original hearing.

The Board further held that even if treated as an application for reconsideration, it would be denied as there was no evidence that the union representative would fail to fulfill his duty of fair representation at the arbitration.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 63 or section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Banister Continental Ltd. was a successor or single employer following its amalgamation with Pitts Engineering Construction Limited.

The union argued this was necessary to protect its bargaining rights from future non-union spin-offs.

The respondents argued that declaring the parent company the successor would improperly expand the union's bargaining rights to other divisions.

The Board held that the purpose of sections 1(4) and 63 is to preserve, not extend, bargaining rights.

The Board declared that Pitts Engineering Construction, a division of Banister Continental Ltd., is the successor employer.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent had or would shortly acquire the business of a nursing home.

The respondent had entered into an agreement to purchase the nursing home licence and transfer residents to a new facility.

The Board declined to express a preliminary opinion on the hypothetical facts, noting the transaction had not yet closed and the licence had not been formally acquired.

The application was dismissed as premature, without prejudice to bringing a fresh application once the transaction was completed.

The applicant, a designated employer bargaining agency, filed a complaint alleging that the respondent companies and trade unions violated the Labour Relations Act by continuing to work and supply employees during a lawful strike in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector.

The respondents argued that pneumatic control work was governed by a separate national agreement and fell outside the provincial agreement.

The Board found that the respondent companies perform pneumatic control installation work within the ICI sector, which is a specialization of the plumbing and pipe fitting trade.

The Board declared the national agreement null and void in the ICI sector, but delayed the effect of the declaration until the expiration of the current provincial agreement to allow the parties to integrate the work.

In a certification application involving multiple unions at a remote mining project, the Ontario Labour Relations Board extended the terminal date because the isolated location and employee work schedules prevented adequate notice.

The Board declined to impose new access rules for union organizers, maintaining the existing arrangements.

Additionally, the Board dismissed allegations that the employer violated section 13 of the Labour Relations Act by informing one union of a rival union's presence, finding such communication practical and not indicative of improper support.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of glaziers and glaziers' apprentices.

The respondent employer argued that its three employees were neither certified journeymen nor registered apprentices, and thus could not be included in the bargaining unit.

The Board found that the trade of glazier is a voluntary trade under the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification Act, meaning uncertified persons can lawfully perform the work.

The Board held that in the construction industry, bargaining units are defined by the work performed rather than the individual qualifications of the employees.

Since the employees were performing glaziers' work, they were included in the bargaining unit, and the Board granted the certification.

The applicant union applied for certification and a pre-hearing representation vote was held, which the union won.

The respondent employer argued that the union's recent merger and name change created a new entity or caused confusion among employees regarding the membership evidence.

The Board found that despite the variations in nomenclature, there was no substantive change in the union's legal identity and no evidence of employee confusion.

The Board certified the union pending the final resolution of the bargaining unit composition.