Employment and Labour Law

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on family status and disability, as well as harassment and reprisal in the form of termination.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the allegations should be dismissed for untimeliness, abuse of process, or lack of connection to the Code.

The Tribunal found that the family status allegations were timely and not subject to a formal settlement.

It also found sufficient evidence of a potential failure to accommodate a disability to warrant a full hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the application to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the respondent was a successor employer under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent had acquired an assignment of a lease and purchased some equipment from a Dominion store that had been closed for a year and a half.

The Board found that due to the long hiatus between the closure of the predecessor and the opening of the respondent's business, any goodwill had dissipated.

The transaction was characterized as a mere transfer of surplus assets rather than the sale of a business.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the statutory freeze under section 79(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer sent an employee home for refusing to paint her new replacement vehicle black.

During an ongoing certification proceeding, the parties had previously stipulated as a fact that the employer's policy of requiring black cars was no longer in effect and was merely encouraged.

The majority of the Board held that this stipulated fact constituted an agreed term or condition of employment that could not be altered without the union's consent during the statutory freeze period.

The Board directed that the employee be reinstated with full compensation.

The Vice-Chairman dissented, finding that the stipulation was merely a description of facts and did not create a new term or condition of employment.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit consisting solely of employees in the respondent's Social Services Department.

The respondent opposed the application, arguing that a departmental unit would unduly fragment the workforce, which consisted of multiple departments.

The Board found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for a departmental bargaining unit and dismissed the application.

The complainant union filed a work assignment complaint regarding electrical installation work.

The respondent employer and intervening unions challenged the Board's jurisdiction under section 91(14) of the Labour Relations Act, arguing the collective agreements required such disputes to be referred to the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board.

The complainant argued the respondent was not bound by the provincial agreement.

The respondent requested a related employer declaration under section 1(4) to be declared a single employer with its unionized subsidiary.

The Board found the preconditions for section 1(4) were met and exercised its discretion to make the declaration, binding the respondent to the provincial agreement.

Consequently, the Board held it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint under section 91(14) and dismissed it.

The applicant union alleged that the respondent nursing home was a successor employer following the transfer of a nursing home licence, patients, and land from a predecessor.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the transaction constituted a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, as the essential elements of the business, including the licence and the residents, were transferred to the successor.

The union referred a grievance to arbitration challenging the discharge of an employee who refused to immediately repay a $4,578 overpayment in room and board allowance.

The overpayment occurred due to a mistake of fact by the employer's personnel office, despite the employee's honest disclosure of his living arrangements.

The Board found that while the employer was entitled to recover the overpayment and could use discipline to enforce it, it did not have just cause for discharge because it failed to give the innocent employee a reasonable opportunity to make repayment.

The grievance was allowed, and the employer was ordered to remove the 'Not For Re-hire' designation and pay damages for lost earnings.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer was bound by a provincial collective agreement.

The union argued that the employer's execution of a National Minimum Standard Agreement for a Commercial Pipe Fabrication Shop and a Union Label Agreement with the international union constituted a collective agreement that bound the employer to the provincial agreement.

The Board found that the fabrication shop agreement was not a collective agreement within the meaning of section 1(1)(e) of the Act, as it appeared to be a 'pick-up' agreement or conditional agreement rather than a standalone collective agreement.

Furthermore, the agreement did not cover employees engaged in on-site construction installation.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to process the grievance and dismissed the application.

The applicant union applied for certification and alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices during the organizing campaign.

The employer held a captive audience meeting where it threatened job security and plant closure if the union was successful.

The following day, the employer discharged four key union supporters.

The Board found that the employer's conduct violated sections 64, 66, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

Given the severity of the employer's interference, the Board concluded that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained through a representation vote.

Finding that the union had membership support adequate for collective bargaining, the Board certified the union pursuant to section 8 of the Act.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a group of truck drivers.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union.

The main issue was whether eight owner-operator drivers were dependent contractors or independent contractors.

The Board found they were economically dependent on the respondent and under an obligation to perform duties, making them dependent contractors.

The Board ordered representation votes to determine if a single employee driver should be included in the same bargaining unit as the dependent contractors.

The complainant Paperworkers' Union filed a complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the assignment of work involving the operation of motorized equipment not requiring an operating engineers ticket at the respondent employer's mill.

The employer had assigned the work to the Operating Engineers' Union.

The Board considered the historical context, technological changes, area practice, and previous Board jurisprudence.

The Board directed that the work be assigned to the Paperworkers' Union, conditional on an undertaking that existing employees belonging to the Operating Engineers' Union be permitted to work within the Paperworkers' Union's jurisdiction while continuing to pay dues to their current union.

The complainant union alleged that the grievor was discharged by the respondent employer because of his union sympathy, contrary to the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent argued that the reverse onus provision in section 89(5) of the Act violated the presumption of innocence in section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that it had jurisdiction to consider the constitutional challenge but dismissed it, finding that section 89(5) is civil and remedial, not criminal, and thus does not contravene the Charter.

On the merits, the Board found overwhelming evidence that the employer unlawfully terminated the grievor and interfered with the union, ordering immediate reinstatement with compensation.

The applicant employer applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to have its Residence Supervisors exempted from the bargaining unit, a matter previously decided against the employer in 1981.

The Board treated the application as a request for reconsideration and dismissed it, noting that no new evidence or material changes in duties were presented.

The Board also declined to treat the matter as a fresh application under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act, as the parties were in the middle of a collective agreement term and the employer had not reserved the right to bring a subsequent application.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer discharged the grievor due to anti-union animus, contrary to section 66(a) of the Labour Relations Act.

The grievor, who was the sole employee responsible for the union's organizing drive, walked off her shift after complaining that her section of the restaurant was unfairly overloaded.

The employer maintained that her departure constituted a resignation and refused to allow her to return to work.

The Board found that the employer was unaware of the grievor's union activities at the time of her discharge and that the decision was based entirely on her conduct of leaving customers unattended.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union sought certification, and a dispute arose regarding the composition of the bargaining unit.

The Board determined that a First Cook exercised managerial functions and was excluded, while a Housekeeper with minor supervisory duties was included.

The Board also found that a maintenance worker who received a $5,000 advance on wages to buy a truck upon turning 65 remained an employee at the time of the application.

The Board directed that the representation vote ballots be counted.

The applicant union sought certification for a single bargaining unit of all occasional teachers employed by the respondent board of education.

The respondent argued for four separate units, dividing teachers by elementary/secondary panels and by short-term/long-term assignments.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rejected the short-term/long-term division, finding it would cause undue fragmentation given the fluid nature of occasional teaching assignments.

However, the Board accepted the division between elementary and secondary panels, citing historical dichotomies, different qualifications, and distinct bargaining priorities.

The Board also determined that its standard 'thirty day rule' would apply to calculate the number of employees in the bargaining units at the time of the application.

The respondent employer requested that the Board extend the time for representations or hold an advance poll because an employee was on vacation during the representation vote.

The Board held that the vote should stand, noting that the employer had agreed to the vote date and failed to raise the issue promptly or on the day of the vote.

As more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant union, the Board issued a certificate.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union's Trial Board violated section 80(2)(b) of the Labour Relations Act by finding him guilty of internal union charges and imposing penalties in retaliation for his filing of a financial statement complaint with the Board.

The Board first determined that the Trial Board members were persons acting on behalf of the trade union.

Applying the 'taint theory', the Board found that the Trial Board's decision on one set of charges was improperly influenced by the complainant's exercise of his statutory rights.

The Board ordered the rescission of the conviction, the five-year ban on participation, and the $1,000 fine associated with those charges.

The applicant sought a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the respondent union representing clerical employees at a hospital.

The union and the hospital were negotiating a first collective agreement and a conciliation officer had been appointed.

The applicant argued that the passage of the Inflation Restraint Act, 1982, which extended compensation plans, effectively cancelled the conciliation officer's appointment, thereby making the termination application timely.

The Board held that for first collective agreements, the normal rights and obligations under the Labour Relations Act and the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act remain unaffected by the Inflation Restraint Act, except for the ceiling on compensation increases.

Therefore, the conciliation officer's appointment remained valid, and the application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant union sought certification for full-time and part-time employees of the respondent hotel.

The employer challenged the union's membership evidence based on irregularities in the collection process, but the Board found the evidence reliable as the union had properly disclosed and corrected the issues.

The employer conceded to committing unfair labour practices, including discharging key union supporters.

The Board concluded that the employer's actions destroyed the free selection process, making it unlikely that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained in a representation vote.

Consequently, the Board certified the union under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act and ordered extensive remedial measures, including reinstatement, compensation, and union access to the workplace.