Employment and Labour Law

Three complainants alleged that the respondent union and its business agent breached the Labour Relations Act regarding hiring hall referrals.

The respondents raised preliminary objections that the complaints should be dismissed due to undue delay in filing.

The Board found that one complainant (Marinaro) had delayed, but the delay was partly due to the union's refusal to provide access to hiring hall records and his attempts to use internal union procedures.

The Board allowed his complaint to proceed, noting any prejudice could be addressed in remedy.

Another complainant (Countryman) failed to exercise due diligence in checking his status on the out-of-work list for over a year; his complaint was dismissed for unreasonable delay.

The union applied for certification and a representation vote was held.

The union won the counted ballots by a margin of five votes.

The employer challenged the status of a homeworker, arguing she was not a part-time employee.

The Board applied the Sydenham Hospital test, converting her piece-rate income to hours using the minimum wage, and found she worked less than 24 hours in a majority of the six weeks preceding the application.

The Board refused the employer's request to renege on a pre-election agreement to exclude foremen from the voting constituency.

Finally, the Board dismissed the employer's argument that union campaign propaganda regarding a profit-sharing plan invalidated the election, finding the statements were not false and did not impair the employees' freedom of choice.

A certificate was issued to the union.

The complainant, a tube mill assistant, refused to work in a lead pot wearing only a small face mask and shield after the required air hat was unavailable.

He was suspended for three days for refusing a direct order.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the complainant had reasonable grounds to believe the work was unsafe without the air hat, given previous warnings and Ministry of Labour directives regarding lead exposure.

The Board concluded that the employer violated the Occupational Health and Safety Act by disciplining the complainant for exercising his right to refuse unsafe work, and ordered the employer to compensate him for the suspension and remove the discipline from his record.

The complainant union alleged that the employer committed unfair labour practices under sections 64 and 67(1) of the Labour Relations Act by communicating directly with bargaining unit employees regarding a proposed extension agreement.

The employer had sought to negotiate an extension agreement with the union to match a competitor's terms, but the union refused to meet.

The employer subsequently sent letters to employees and had management personnel speak with employees on the plant floor.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer did not attempt to bargain directly with the employees and that the communications were protected by the employer's freedom of expression under section 64, as they did not involve coercion, intimidation, threats, promises, or undue influence.

The complainant filed a complaint alleging that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to take his grievance to arbitration.

The grievance concerned the employer's failure to recall the complainant from layoff, which the employer justified on the basis that the complainant had previously quit.

The Board found that the union conducted a reasonable investigation, considered the evidence, and honestly concluded that the grievance was unlikely to succeed at arbitration.

The complaint was dismissed.

The union won a representation vote for certification.

The employer sought to set aside the election, arguing that four people who cast ballots were not entitled to vote.

On the day of the vote, the parties had signed a waiver agreeing that the four individuals were eligible to vote and waiving any objections.

The employer later argued that one of the individuals was a student and therefore excluded from the bargaining unit, and that the waiver was signed through inadvertence.

The Board held that the waiver superseded the earlier voters' list agreement and declined to release the employer from its waiver, emphasizing the importance of finality in representation votes.

The Board issued a certificate to the union.

The complainant trade union alleged that the respondent employer engaged in an unlawful lockout and violated several provisions of the Labour Relations Act by attempting to force employees to work under terms less favourable than their provincial collective agreement.

Facing cost overruns and pressure from the owner, the employer sought to implement a four-day work week with extended hours at straight time, contrary to the collective agreements of several trades.

When the union refused, the employer closed the site on Fridays, effectively reducing the employees' hours.

The Board found that the employer's actions constituted an unlawful lockout designed to compel the union to agree to concessions.

The Board also found that the employer violated section 146(2) of the Act by attempting to negotiate a separate local arrangement inconsistent with the provincial agreement.

The applicant union alleged that James River-Marathon Ltd. (JRM) was a successor employer to American Can Canada Inc. regarding its woodlands operations under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

JRM had purchased a paper mill and timber limits from American Can, but simultaneously transferred the woodlands equipment and exclusive cutting rights to Pic River Forest Products Inc., a subsidiary of Buchanan Forest Products Limited.

The Board found that while JRM initially acquired the woodlands business, it immediately transferred it to Pic River in a transaction resembling a sale of a business rather than a mere subcontract.

Since JRM did not retain or operate the woodlands business itself, the application for a successor employer declaration against JRM was dismissed.

The complainant, a business representative for a union local, alleged that his employer (the local) violated sections 64 and 66 of the Labour Relations Act by discharging him for his union activities and interfering with his choice of representative.

The Board deferred the section 66 discrimination and discharge allegations to arbitration, noting that an arbitrator had already dismissed the complainant's grievances on these issues.

Regarding the section 64 allegation, the Board found that the employer's inquiries into the authority of the complainant's chosen representative, who worked for a different union, did not constitute improper interference.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent hospital violated the Labour Relations Act by maintaining a job description for unit supervisors that required them to process grievances and discipline other bargaining unit employees.

The union argued this created a conflict of interest that interfered with the unit supervisors' ability to participate in lawful union activities.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding no evidence of anti-union motive or that the situation interfered with rights protected under the Act.

The Board noted that the managerial exclusion policy balances protections for both employers and trade unions.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging the respondent employer violated the provincial agreement by failing to pay the correct wage rates for excavating work.

The employer argued it was entitled to pay the lower 'mid-line' rates under Schedule 'D' of the agreement, which applied to members of the Toronto & District Excavators Association, or alternatively that denying it access to those rates was discriminatory under section 151(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that because the employer was not a member of the Association and did not pay the mid-line rate on all its work, it was bound by the higher general rates in Schedule 'J'.

The Board directed the employer to make the appropriate payments.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent construction company.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing its labour relations fell under federal jurisdiction because 90% of its work in Ontario was performed for Bell Canada, a federal undertaking.

The Board rejected this argument, finding that the respondent's ordinary business was construction, which falls under provincial jurisdiction, and its work was not an integral part of Bell Canada's operations.

The Board also determined that the work performed by the employees did not fall within the industrial, commercial and institutional sector.

Finding that the union had sufficient membership support, the Board ordered a representation vote.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging the respondent employer failed to pay travel allowances to carpenters from Essex County working on a project in Chatham, contrary to the provincial agreement.

The employer argued it was not required to pay the allowances because a union official had previously assured the employer that local Chatham carpenters would be referred to the project, leading the employer to omit travel allowances from its project costing.

The Board found that the doctrine of estoppel applied, as the employer had reasonably relied on the union official's assurance to its detriment.

The grievance was dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a part-time office and clerical bargaining unit at the respondent university.

The respondent argued for a tag-end or standard office, clerical, and technical unit.

The Board found that the proposed unit, which mirrored the long-established full-time bargaining structure, was appropriate.

The Board excluded 23 students working in the Kinetic Centre, finding they had a stronger affinity with technical employees.

Due to a significant increase in the number of part-time employees shortly after the application date, the Board ordered a representation vote rather than automatic certification.

The applicant union, a newly chartered local of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, applied for certification to represent construction labourers, cement finishers, and waterproof applicators.

The interveners challenged the applicant's jurisdiction to accept these workers into membership and argued the proposed bargaining units were inappropriate under section 144 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that while the applicant had the authority to accept these workers into membership, it was an affiliated bargaining agent represented by the millwrights employee bargaining agency.

Consequently, the workers sought to be represented fell outside the province-wide bargaining regime and did not constitute an appropriate bargaining unit under section 144(1).

The applications for certification were dismissed.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union after the grievance committee withdrew his grievance, which had been posted to arbitration, without allowing him an appeal.

The union had withdrawn the grievance as part of a backlog clearance following contract negotiations, determining it could not succeed at arbitration.

The Board found that the union's internal appeal procedures did not extend to decisions made after a grievance was posted to arbitration.

As the union retained the prerogative to withdraw the grievance and did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith, the complaint was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision granting him a religious exemption from paying union dues, seeking to have the exemption apply retroactively to the date of his application.

The Board found that section 47(1) of the Labour Relations Act does not limit the scope of its orders regarding commencement dates.

Since the union and employer had notice of the application and potential liability from the outset, the Board amended its order to apply from the application date and directed the union to remit the dues collected during that period to the agreed-upon charity.

The applicant union filed an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act alleging a sale of a business by Chateau Gardens to the respondents, a court-appointed receiver and a secured creditor.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant had not obtained leave of the Supreme Court of Ontario, as required by the receiving order.

The Board held that it had exclusive jurisdiction under sections 106(1) and 108 of the Act, and that requiring leave of the court would constitute an impermissible questioning or restraining of the Board's proceedings.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection and directed the matter to be listed for a hearing on the merits.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent school board committed an unfair labour practice by distributing a circular to occasional teachers during an organizing campaign.

The circular stated that union solicitation should not take place on school premises during the school day and warned of discipline for such conduct.

A subsequent circular clarified that employees could discuss union membership on their own time.

The majority of the Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer's communications were a valid exercise of its right to maintain order and prevent disruption of the educational program, and did not violate the Labour Relations Act.

A dissenting member would have found an unfair labour practice and ordered a remedial posting.

The union referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the employer violated the provincial agreement.

The parties agreed to first determine whether the employer was actually bound by the agreement.

The Board found that although the employer had signed various documents, including a 'letter of assent' and a 'signing page', these were signed on the understanding they would not be enforced and did not constitute formal voluntary recognition.

The Board concluded the employer was not legally bound by the provincial agreement and terminated the proceedings.