Employment and Labour Law

The applicant union applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging a sale of a business from Shiffer-Hillman Company Limited to the respondent, 529592 Ontario Limited.

The predecessor company went into receivership, and its former vice-president incorporated the respondent to purchase assets, including the trade name, patterns, and some inventory, from the receiver.

The respondent operated from the same location, used the same telephone number, and employed several former employees, though it contracted out manufacturing and sold directly to the public.

The Board found that the transaction constituted a sale of a part of a business, as the respondent acquired essential components, notably the location and goodwill associated with the trade name, to carry on a restructured version of the predecessor's business.

The respondent was declared bound by the collective agreement.

The applicant, a working foreman, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights and circulated a petition signed by employees.

The Board first clarified a previous ruling, confirming that an agreement attempting to amend the bargaining unit in the provincial agreement is null and void under section 146(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

On the merits of the petition, the Board found that although the applicant was an employee in the bargaining unit and not excluded by section 1(3)(b), he was the sole representative of the employer on the job site for most of the time.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the employees would have perceived the applicant as a representative of the employer, rendering the petition involuntary.

The application for termination was dismissed.

A dissenting board member would have accepted the petition and directed a vote.

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

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act and determined the appropriate bargaining unit.

A central issue was the validity of the membership evidence, as the application cards named the parent international union rather than the specific local, though the attached receipts referenced the local.

Distinguishing a previous decision, the Board accepted the membership evidence, finding that the employees knew they were signifying the applicant local as their exclusive bargaining agent.

The Board also verified the authenticity of challenged signatures.

Having found that more than 55% of the employees in the unit were members, the Board granted the application and issued a certificate.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of plumbers and pipefitters employed by the respondent school board in the construction industry.

The respondent argued it was not an employer in the construction industry and that the work performed was maintenance, not construction.

The Board found that the respondent's program to replace obsolete radiators and thermostats constituted repair work, which falls within the definition of the construction industry under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that an employer whose principal business is not construction may still operate a business in the construction industry, and the applicant had sufficient membership support for certification.

The applicant union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board considered the report of a Labour Relations Officer regarding the status of six employees.

The Board found that three employees who performed warranty inspections and repairs were service employees, not construction labourers, and were excluded from the bargaining unit.

Of the three employees challenged as managerial, the Board found one was excluded under section 1(3)(b) of the Act as he retained superintendent responsibilities, while the other two were working foremen and included in the unit.

The applicant school board sought a declaration that the issuance of 'pink letters' by the respondent teachers' federations, advising members not to apply for or accept employment in the board's continuing education program (night school and summer school), constituted an unlawful strike.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

It held that the continuing education program was not a 'school program' within the meaning of the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, and therefore the concerted refusal to apply for positions did not constitute a strike under that Act.

Furthermore, the Board found that the teachers were not employees in respect of the continuing education program and had no obligation to staff it, meaning their actions did not constitute a strike under the Labour Relations Act.

The complainant trade union alleged that the respondent security company, acting on behalf of the struck employer, committed unfair labour practices by planting an undercover investigator within the bargaining unit during a lengthy strike.

The investigator posed as a striking employee, reported to the employer on union bargaining strategy and internal dissension, fostered dissent among the strikers, and engaged in unlawful acts on the picket line.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the respondent's actions constituted a flagrant violation of section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by interfering with the administration of the trade union and the representation of employees.

The Board held that infiltrating a trade union during or in anticipation of a strike is a per se violation of the Act.

The Board ordered the respondent to compensate the union for half of the wages and strike pay lost due to the five-week prolongation of the strike caused by its actions, and to provide written notice of its violation to any trade union it is retained to act against in the future.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by settling his grievance over strike-related discipline without his consent.

The union had consolidated 23 similar grievances for expedited arbitration and retained legal counsel.

After several days of hearing, union counsel negotiated a settlement that reduced the discipline for many employees and secured a commitment from the employer regarding the complainant's discipline.

The Board found that the union's decision to settle was based on a thorough understanding of the evidence and the merits of the case, and was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's retail store.

The union filed sufficient documentary evidence of membership to be certified without a representation vote.

However, a group of employees filed a petition opposing certification, which included signatures of employees who had previously signed union membership cards.

The Board found that the petition was originated and circulated by the head cashier, who exercised supervisory functions and was perceived by employees as having a special relationship with management.

Consequently, the Board concluded the petition did not represent a voluntary change of heart and declined to order a representation vote.

The union was certified.

One Board member dissented.

During a union certification application, the employer alleged that an employee had signed a union membership card without paying the required $1.00 initiation fee.

The Board held a hearing to assess the credibility of the employee and the union collector.

The Board preferred the evidence of the union collector, finding that the employee had indeed paid the $1.00 fee.

The union's documentary evidence was found to comply with the Labour Relations Act.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by terminating or reducing the hours of several temporary workers supplied by employment agencies.

This action was allegedly taken in response to a grievance filed by the union claiming these workers were employees covered by the collective agreement.

The Board found that the agency workers were employees of the employer for the purposes of the Act, given the high degree of control exercised over them.

The Board further held that the employer's actions in reducing their hours and terminating them were motivated by anti-union animus and a desire to penalize them for the grievance, thereby violating sections 64, 66, and 80(1) of the Act.

The employer was ordered to reinstate the workers with compensation.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer committed numerous unfair labour practices following an application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer engaged in a pervasive campaign of anti-union animus, including unlawful layoffs, constructive discharge, harassment, and unilateral alterations to terms and conditions of employment during the statutory freeze period.

The Board ordered extensive remedial relief, including reinstatement with compensation, restoration of privileges, and union access to employer-convened meetings.

The complainant union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that employees were laid off or discharged for union activity.

The respondent employer argued that it should not be required to proceed first with its evidence, asserting that the reverse onus provision in section 89(5) of the Labour Relations Act violates the presumption of innocence under section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Board rejected this argument, reaffirming its previous jurisprudence that section 89 is remedial and civil in nature, not penal or quasi-criminal.

The Board directed the respondent to proceed first with its evidence in accordance with normal practice.

The applicant union filed an application for certification without requesting a pre-hearing vote.

The intervener union subsequently filed an application by way of intervention and requested a pre-hearing vote.

The applicant objected to the intervener's membership evidence, arguing it should be assessed as of the applicant's application date rather than the terminal date.

The Board held that when a subsequent application requesting a pre-hearing vote is heard together with a regular application, both are treated as regular applications.

The Board assessed membership evidence as of the terminal date, found both unions had sufficient support, and ordered a representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The Board previously found that the union lacked majority support without a disputed membership card and considered ordering a representation vote.

The union requested certification under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act, arguing that the employer's unlawful discharge of a union supporter and involvement in employee statements of desire made a free representation vote unlikely.

The Board found that the employer's unlawful discharge of an employee for union activity would prevent the true wishes of employees from being freely ascertained in a vote.

The Board granted certification under section 8.

The complainant, a probationary employee, was discharged by his employer.

He alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to represent him or file a grievance on his behalf.

The union argued that under the collective agreement, it was not required to represent probationary employees in cases of discharge.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union acted arbitrarily by relying on a collective agreement provision to completely abdicate its duty to represent the complainant simply because he was a probationary employee.

The Board ordered the union to submit the discharge to arbitration and ordered the employer to waive any timeliness objections.

The applicant, along with four other sheet metal workers employed by Culliton Brothers Limited, applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' Conference.

The union argued that because the employees were not union members, they were not 'employees in the bargaining unit' as defined by the collective agreement, and therefore lacked status to bring the application under section 57(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that the employees, who were swept into the province-wide bargaining scheme by operation of law under section 137(2), were employees in the bargaining unit despite not being union members.

The Board distinguished previous cases involving illegal hiring, noting these employees pre-existed the extension of bargaining rights.

A representation vote was directed.

One Board member dissented, arguing the application was untimely as the employees were not members of the bargaining unit as defined in the collective agreement.

The applicant union and intervener employer association requested reconsideration of a Board decision which found that a decision of the Joint Industry Committee (J.I.C.) was not binding on the respondent employer.

The applicants argued the Board made factual errors without hearing evidence and failed to recognize the J.I.C.'s authority.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the employer had not consented to be bound by the J.I.C. decision and that the statute did not contemplate the J.I.C. exercising such authority over an individual employer without its consent.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to be scheduled for a hearing on the merits.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and submitted confirmation documents as evidence of membership.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the documents did not indicate that the signatories had paid at least one dollar in initiation fees or monthly dues, as required by section 1(1)(l) of the Labour Relations Act.

Consequently, the Board determined that there was insufficient evidence of membership and dismissed the application.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of production employees.

The issue was whether a numerical control programmer shared a community of interest with the production employees or should be excluded as office/technical staff.

The Board applied the Usarco criteria, focusing on conditions of employment, organizational structure, and functional coherence.

Finding that the programmer shared similar compensation, hours, and reporting structures with production workers, the Board concluded there was a community of interest and included the position in the bargaining unit.