Employment and Labour Law

The applicant, an employers' organization, applied for accreditation as the bargaining agent for certain employers in the residential sector of the construction industry who have a bargaining relationship with the respondent union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that it had jurisdiction, that the applicant was a properly constituted employers' organization, and that it represented a majority of the employers who employed a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit.

The Board granted the application and issued a Certificate of Accreditation.

The applicant union sought leave to withdraw its application for certification.

The respondent employer requested that the application be dismissed and a one-year bar be imposed on subsequent applications, citing two previous unsuccessful applications.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board noted that the first application involved a small maintenance unit, while the current and immediately preceding applications involved a much larger all-employee unit.

The Board found that the applications did not pertain to the same employee group to a degree that would cause sufficient unrest to warrant a bar.

The Board dismissed the application but declined to impose a bar on future applications.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The issue was whether the applicant met the 45% threshold of employees in the bargaining unit.

The union argued that 13 persons whose employment was terminated due to subcontracting should be counted if their pending grievance succeeded.

The employer argued for the 30/30 rule, which would exclude them.

The Board held that under section 1(2) of the Labour Relations Act, the terminated individuals should be treated as employees if reinstated by the arbitration board.

The matter was adjourned pending the release of the arbitration award.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of employees at Moose Factory Hospital.

The respondent employer argued that nine employees were guards under section 12 of the Labour Relations Act and that one employee exercised managerial functions under section 1(3)(b).

The Board found that the nine employees were not guards, as their duties primarily involved protecting property from visitors and intruders rather than monitoring other employees.

The Board also found that the supervisor of security services did not exercise effective control or authority over employees and was therefore not a manager.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection that the applicant was not bound to a collective agreement with it.

The Board found that the employer was bound to a collective agreement with Local 1089, not the applicant Local 1059.

The Board held that the applicant had no jurisdiction to refer the grievance because it was not a party to the collective agreement.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant union sought consent to institute a prosecution against the employer for alleged violations of section 75(1) of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act.

The union alleged that the employer interfered with its representation rights by restructuring an Academic Committee to include bargainable issues and by communicating directly with faculty members.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding no prima facie case of interference.

The Board held that the committee's recommendatory nature and the employer's communications fell within the scope of management functions and protected employer free speech, respectively.

The complainant alleged that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to process her termination grievance to arbitration.

The union admitted the breach and agreed to a remedial order directing the grievance to arbitration and waiving the collective agreement's time limits.

The employer opposed the order, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to waive time limits because section 44(6) of the Act delegates that power exclusively to arbitrators.

The Board held that section 89(4) grants it broad remedial authority to override collective agreement provisions, including time limits, and that section 44(6) does not make an arbitrator's jurisdiction exclusive.

However, the Board ruled that it could not issue the consent order without a hearing on the merits, as the employer is a proper party and is entitled to put the complainant to the proof of her case before any remedy affecting the employer is granted.

During a hearing into a complaint of bad faith bargaining, the complainant union served a summons duces tecum on an officer of the respondent employer, requiring the production of payroll and benefit records for all employees during a strike.

The union alleged the employer demanded concessions while paying strike replacements and salaried employees higher wages and benefits.

The employer objected to producing records for salaried and managerial employees, claiming confidentiality.

The Board ordered the production of the records for any employees who performed bargaining unit work during the strike, finding the information potentially relevant to assessing the employer's motivation and economic justification for its bargaining positions.

The Board directed the documents be deposited with the Registrar to facilitate examination and potential enforcement proceedings.

The applicant union sought a declaration that Thorn Press and Stevens Reproductions were related employers under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively that a sale of a business had occurred under section 63.

Thorn Press had closed its lithographic department and allowed Stevens Reproductions to operate out of its premises using its equipment to perform the bulk of its lithographic work.

The Board found that Thorn retained effective control over the lithographic business carried on by Stevens Reproductions.

The Board exercised its discretion to declare the two entities one employer for the purposes of the Act.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the respondent union regarding grievances with his employer, Ryder Truck Lines.

The union raised a preliminary objection that the employer's labour relations fall under federal jurisdiction.

The Board found that the employer operates as a functionally integrated part of an international highway transport undertaking.

Consequently, the Board ruled it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the matter falls under the Canada Labour Code, and dismissed the complaint.

The complainants, members of the respondent union, alleged that the union violated section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to provide them with copies of hiring hall out-of-work lists and job referral records.

The union raised preliminary objections, arguing that a refusal of information cannot violate section 69, that the individual union officer should be struck as a respondent, that the Board should defer to internal union processes, and that the complaint lacked particulars.

The Board held that an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith refusal to provide referral information can violate section 69.

The Board struck the individual officer from the style of cause, declined to defer to internal union processes, and ordered the complainants to file further particulars before the matter would be relisted for hearing.

The complainant union alleged that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by contracting out cleaning work shortly after certification and during collective bargaining.

The union argued this was motivated by anti-union animus and that the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith by tabling wage rates for cleaners while intending to contract out the work.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer's decision was part of a broader operational review commenced before the union's arrival and was motivated by substantial cost savings.

The Board also held that the employer satisfied its duty to disclose by providing written notice of its intention to contract out prior to bargaining.

The applicant union requested that the Board issue arrest warrants for four individuals who failed to attend a hearing after being served with a summons to witness.

The Board found that the individuals were provided with cheques for their conduct money rather than cash.

Noting the practical difficulties associated with cashing cheques, the Board held that a witness is entitled to actual receipt of conduct money in cash prior to being required to attend.

The Board declined to issue the arrest warrants.

The complainant trade union alleged that the respondent employer violated the statutory freeze provisions of the Labour Relations Act by terminating four employees without following the progressive discipline procedures set out in the employer's Policy Manual.

The Board found that the Policy Manual established the pre-freeze terms and conditions of employment, which the employer was obligated to maintain.

Because the employer failed to follow its own discipline policy, the terminations violated the Act.

The Board ordered the employees reinstated with compensation and directed the employer to post a notice of its violation.

Following a finding that the employer committed an unfair labour practice by failing to disclose a planned plant closure during collective bargaining, the Board held a hearing to assess damages for the union's loss of opportunity to negotiate.

The Board found that the union would likely have achieved improved severance and priority hiring rights had the closure been disclosed.

The Board awarded damages to affected employees equal to 25% of the difference between the severance they received and the severance paid to non-bargaining unit employees, along with priority hiring rights at other plants.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer breached a written settlement of an earlier unfair labour practice complaint by failing to pay agreed-upon compensation to three reinstated employees.

The employer argued the settlement was void because the employees resigned shortly after returning to work, which contravened the employer's unexpressed expectation of stability.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the clear, unambiguous terms of a written settlement cannot be repudiated based on unstated expectations or subsequent events not addressed in the agreement.

The Board directed the employer to pay the specified sums.

The complainant sought to compel an inspector appointed under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to testify regarding a report and statements made by supervisory personnel.

The Board ruled that the inspector was not a compellable witness pursuant to section 34(2) of the Act, as the hearing constituted a 'proceeding' and the evidence sought related to information obtained under the Act.

The Board also recorded the complainant's undertaking not to add the respondent company to a separate section 68 Labour Relations Act complaint.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint and an application for consent to prosecute the employer, arising from the reorganization of the employer's business.

The union had also filed grievances under the collective agreement which were proceeding to arbitration.

The Board deferred the unfair labour practice complaint to arbitration, noting the substantial overlap in issues, evidence, and remedies, and retained jurisdiction to ensure the matter proceeds expeditiously.

The Board also adjourned the application for consent to prosecute.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees at the respondent's plant.

A group of employees filed a statement of desire opposing the certification.

The union initially alleged employer interference but withdrew those allegations.

The Board inquired into the origination and circulation of the statement of desire.

The Board found that the employees who circulated the petition acted on their own views and that the employer maintained a hands-off policy, only intervening to stop discussions when production was affected.

The Board concluded the statement of desire represented the voluntary wishes of the employees and ordered a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, finding that management favoured the objectors.

The applicant trade union requested that the Board reconsider and remove a six-month bar on certification applications imposed in a previous decision dismissing its application.

The applicant argued that the bar would prevent it from applying during the statutory 'open' period in the two months preceding April 30, 1984, as prescribed by section 146(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The interveners opposed the request, citing the Board's normal policy of imposing a bar to allow a 'cooling off' period and prevent repetitious applications.

The Board found that neither policy reason applied, as the open period was two years after the last one, and the continuous nature of the proceedings did not make a new application repetitious.

The Board revoked the bar to preserve the employees' right to be involved in certification applications during the statutorily protected open period.