Employment and Labour Law

The respondents raised a preliminary objection to dismiss a section 68 complaint due to the complainant's delay in filing.

The Board ruled that the complaint would be heard on its merits.

However, due to the delay, the complainant was denied monetary compensation for the period between February 1, 1982, and April 14, 1983.

The respondents were held liable for compensation during a sine die adjournment because they failed to stipulate otherwise as a condition of the adjournment.

The applicant union sought relief under sections 1(4) and 63 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the appointment of a receiver and manager by a bank constituted a sale of a business and that the bank and receiver were related employers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the appointment of a receiver and manager by instrument did not constitute a disposition or sale of the business, making the section 63 application premature.

The Board also declined to make a related employer declaration under section 1(4), as there was no common ownership or control, and the application was merely an attempt to collect uncollectable debts from a solvent creditor rather than to preserve bargaining rights.

The complainant union alleged that the respondents violated section 146 of the Labour Relations Act by entering into an agreement or arrangement for concrete forming work in the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector that was contrary to the provincial collective agreement.

The respondent union brought a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that its relationship with the employer association was specifically exempted from the employee bargaining agency designation by the Minister of Labour under section 139 of the Act.

The Board agreed, finding that the exclusion in the designation meant the employees were not represented by affiliated bargaining agents for the purpose of section 146(2).

The complaint was dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie violation of the Act.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of the respondent's office, clerical, and technical employees.

A group of objecting technical employees argued they had a separate community of interest and should be excluded from the unit.

The Board applied its long-standing practice of grouping technical employees with office and clerical staff to avoid undue fragmentation, finding no unique circumstances to justify a departure.

The Board also declined the respondent's request to direct a representation vote under section 7(2) of the Act, holding that the union's support must be assessed across the entire appropriate bargaining unit, not just among the objecting technical employees.

The technical employees were included in the unit.

The complainant trade union alleged that the respondent employer violated the Labour Relations Act by failing to disclose during collective bargaining that its Hamilton plant would be closed.

The employer announced the closure shortly after a new collective agreement was signed.

The Board found that the employer had made a de facto decision to close the plant during bargaining and that its failure to disclose this information was tantamount to a misrepresentation, violating the duty to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Act.

The Board directed a hearing to determine damages.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A preliminary issue arose regarding the late filing of seven membership documents, which were sent by registered mail.

The terminal date for the application was August 31, 1983, but the registration stamp on the envelope was dated September 1, 1983.

The Board held a hearing to allow the applicant to prove the Post Office made an error.

The applicant's witness testified he mailed the documents on August 31, but failed to produce corroborating evidence such as a work schedule or the original registration slip.

The Board found the applicant failed to satisfy the onus of proving a Post Office error and ruled the seven late cards could not be relied upon.

The matter was referred to an officer.

Following a finding that the respondent union violated section 69 of the Labour Relations Act regarding hiring hall referrals, the Board convened a hearing to determine compensation.

The Board rejected the calculation methods proposed by both the complainant and the union, finding them speculative.

Instead, the Board calculated compensation by comparing the complainant's actual earnings to the estimated average earnings of the active membership of the local union for the relevant year.

After deducting amounts for the complainant's failure to mitigate by voluntarily quitting a job and for a period of medical disability, the Board ordered the union to pay $4,341.86 plus interest and corresponding benefit contributions.

The applicant union sought certification for two bricklayers employed by the respondent municipality.

The respondent argued it was not an employer in the construction industry and that the employees were maintenance workers covered by an existing collective agreement.

The Board found that the employees spent the majority of their time performing construction work, not maintenance.

The Board also held that the municipality, by undertaking construction work on its own behalf, operated a business in the construction industry.

The existing collective agreement was found not to cover construction work.

Certification was granted.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent prime contractor engaged in an unlawful lock-out by reducing the electricians' work week from 36 to 32 hours after they refused to agree to a modified four-day work week at straight time.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the respondent's actions constituted an unlawful lock-out under section 72(1) of the Labour Relations Act, as the reduction in hours was intended to compel the employees to modify their provincial agreement.

The Board also found that the respondent violated section 146(2) by attempting to negotiate an arrangement other than a provincial agreement, and ordered the respondent to cease and desist and pay damages.

The complainant union alleged that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by laying off five employees because they supported the union's certification application.

The employer contended the lay offs were for bona fide business reasons due to a lack of work.

Applying the reverse onus under section 89(5) of the Act, the Board found the employer provided a credible explanation that the lay offs were strictly for business reasons and untainted by anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by failing to hire seven individuals referred by the union.

The Board found the employer in breach and ordered compensation for lost wages and benefits.

The Board also considered whether the compensation award should include an interest component.

After reviewing arbitral jurisprudence, the Board concluded it had the implied authority to award interest to fully compensate the aggrieved employees for the loss of the use of their funds.

The Board ordered the employer to pay $5,435.28 in lost wages and $1,972.98 in interest.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of truck drivers employed by the respondent.

The initial application did not exclude the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector, but was later amended by the applicant to exclude it.

The respondent proposed a bargaining unit restricted to the road construction sector and sought exclusions for camp staff, engineering staff, summer students, and employees covered by a subsisting agreement.

The Board declined to make sectoral determinations or grant the respondent's requested exclusions, noting its practice of avoiding sectoral determinations in construction industry certification proceedings.

Finding that more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit were members of the applicant, the Board issued a certificate to the applicant without a hearing.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent stage employees of the respondent.

The respondent challenged the applicant's trade union status and the validity of its membership evidence, arguing that the applicant failed to follow its own constitution regarding competency examinations, initiation fees, and residency requirements.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also upheld the validity of the membership evidence, noting that the statutory definition of a member supersedes union constitutional requirements for the purposes of certification, and that the residency requirement did not violate the Act.

The matter was referred to a labour relations officer to inquire into the bargaining unit description and employee lists.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed an unfair labour practice by discharging a casual nurse during a union organizing campaign.

The grievor had cancelled three of her scheduled shifts in retaliation for the employer cancelling one of her shifts.

The Board found that the employer discharged the grievor solely due to her unprofessional and retaliatory conduct, and that the decision was not tainted by anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainants alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation and violated voting procedures under the Labour Relations Act during a contract ratification meeting.

The union presented a combined ballot asking employees to either accept the company's final offer or authorize a strike, and refused requests to split the ballot.

The Board found that the union was entitled to structure the ballot to reflect the collective bargaining reality and bring negotiations to a head.

The Board also dismissed allegations of intimidation and found that, despite defects in the notice of the meeting, no employees were deprived of the opportunity to vote.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union sought certification without a vote under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act following a representation vote in which it did not obtain majority support.

The union alleged improper conduct by the respondent employer and the intervener association.

The Board found that the allegations, even if proven, did not make out a prima facie case for certification without a vote.

As the union did not seek any other remedy, the application for certification was dismissed with a six-month bar.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer, Nelson Quarry, was attempting to undermine and destroy the union by contracting out work to non-union firms, notably Torres Transport Limited.

The employer raised two preliminary objections: first, that the matter should be deferred to the grievance-arbitration procedure under the collective agreement, and second, that the particulars of the complaint stretched too far back in time.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to defer to arbitration, finding that the allegations involved a potential repudiation of substantive statutory rights under the Labour Relations Act.

However, applying the principle of repose due to delay, the Board exercised its discretion under section 89 of the Act to refuse to inquire into any allegations of improper conduct occurring prior to the 18-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to be re-listed for hearing.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer breached the statutory freeze provisions of the Labour Relations Act by discharging the grievor without just cause.

The grievor, a clerical employee with eight years of unblemished service, was discharged after claiming a safety boot subsidy for boots purchased for her husband and son.

The Board found that while the grievor's conduct was improper, the employer failed to apply its established policy of progressive discipline and had treated similar cases much more leniently in the past.

The Board concluded that the discharge was unjust and ordered the grievor reinstated with compensation, subject to a deduction equivalent to a three-day suspension.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer and an objecting employee argued that the union's membership evidence should be rejected or a representation vote ordered because the union used a two-tiered initiation fee ($1.00 now, $300.00 later) and allegedly coerced employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed the union's organizing tactics and found that the two-tiered fee was properly explained and allowed employees to join for the lower fee up until a first contract was signed.

The Board concluded that the union's conduct did not cross the line into misrepresentation, coercion, or intimidation.

Finding that over 55 percent of the employees were members, the Board certified the union without a vote.

The applicant employer sought relief under section 92 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent union and several of its officials and members engaged in, authorized, or encouraged an unlawful strike by instituting a ban on overtime work.

The Board found that the concerted withholding of overtime constituted a strike within the meaning of the Act, and because it occurred during the operation of a collective agreement, it was unlawful.

The Board issued declarations and cease and desist directions against the union, certain officials, and certain employees, but dismissed the application against the International union, the Canadian Labour Congress, and individuals for whom there was insufficient evidence of participation.