Employment and Labour Law

The applicant trade union applied for certification for four bargaining units at the respondent's retail store in Brampton.

The parties disputed the geographic scope of the units and the exclusion of personnel staff.

The Board defined the units to include all retail stores in Brampton and excluded only the existing personnel supervisor.

Objecting employees requested a representation vote, alleging intimidation and coercion by union supporters and security staff.

The Board found that the conduct of fellow employees was normal campaign byplay and that the security staff's actions did not unlawfully interfere with employee rights.

Given that over 80% of employees had signed membership cards, the Board certified the union without a vote.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the respondent employer violated a residential collective agreement.

The central issue was whether the employer was bound to the agreement for low-rise residential construction based on a 1972 voluntary recognition agreement.

The Board found that the 1972 voluntary recognition agreement explicitly excluded low-rise residential construction.

Subsequent accreditation of the employers' organization did not expand the scope of the union's bargaining rights.

Therefore, the employer was not bound by the residential agreement for low-rise construction, and the grievance was dismissed.

The United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) applied under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration that it was the successor to the Kraus Carpet Employees Association following a merger.

The respondent employers argued the Association lacked the power to merge without unanimous member consent and that the voting procedure was flawed.

A complainant employee also alleged the merger process breached the union's duty of fair representation under section 68.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that unanimous consent was not required for a trade union to merge under the Act, and that the single vote to amend the constitution and approve the merger was sufficient.

The Board declared the UFCW the successor union and dismissed the section 68 complaint.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a unit of maintenance electricians employed by the respondent mining company.

The union argued that the electricians constituted a craft unit deemed appropriate under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board reviewed extensive evidence of the union's bargaining practices across various industries in Canada and the United States.

The Board found that outside the construction and related industries, the union did not commonly bargain separately and apart for maintenance electricians.

Consequently, the union failed to meet the mandatory criteria of section 6(3) and was not entitled to a separate craft bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Although the union met the statutory requirements for automatic certification, the respondent employer requested a representation vote be delayed due to a projected build-up in its workforce.

The Board applied the criteria for projected build-ups and found that the current employees were sufficiently representative of the expected ongoing workforce, excluding temporary seasonal hires.

The Board declined to direct a representation vote and granted automatic certification.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The employer argued that employees absent on the application date due to hunting should be included in the bargaining unit count.

The Board rejected this, affirming its long-standing practice of only counting employees actually at work on the application date in the construction industry.

A group of objecting employees filed a petition but failed to appear at the scheduled hearing to provide required evidence of its voluntariness, instead requesting an adjournment.

The Board denied the adjournment, noting the prejudice caused by delay in construction industry certifications, and granted the union's application for certification based on its documentary evidence of membership.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent companies constituted one employer.

The respondents conceded the statutory prerequisites were met but argued the Board should exercise its discretion not to make the declaration.

The Board found that while the companies were under common control, the unionized company was largely inactive and there was no siphoning of work from the unionized enterprise to the non-union one.

Furthermore, the union did not represent any of the employees of the non-union company at the time the voluntary recognition agreement was signed.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to make the declaration and dismissed the application.

The applicant union sought certification to represent employees of a non-profit training school.

The evidence revealed that the union and the employer were inextricably intertwined, with the union's president also serving as the president of the employer's board of directors, and the union's president having actively encouraged the employees to join the union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the inherent conflict of interest and the employer's participation in the union's administration violated section 13 of the Labour Relations Act, which prohibits the certification of a trade union that has received employer support.

The complainant, an employee with over nine years of seniority and a history of absenteeism due to injuries, was discharged by the employer after a medical assessment indicated he could not perform his regular job and no light duty work was available.

The complainant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to advocate for him or file a grievance regarding his discharge.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union's perfunctory acquiescence to the discharge, without considering the arbitral jurisprudence on innocent absenteeism or the possibility of preserving his employment status, constituted arbitrary conduct.

The Board ordered the union to file and process a discharge grievance to arbitration at its own expense.

The Windsor Grain Processor's Union filed a complaint alleging that the employer committed unfair labour practices by interfering in a proposed merger with the U.A.W. and by penalizing the union president and other employees.

The union president was suspended following a physical altercation in the locker room, and the employer posted a notice regarding the merger vote.

The Board found that the employer's actions were not motivated by anti-union animus and that the notice was protected by the free speech proviso.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant trade union filed an unfair labour practice complaint 15 months after the termination of an employee, alleging the discharge was motivated by anti-union animus.

The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the complaint should be dismissed due to extreme delay.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed its jurisprudence on delay and the equitable doctrine of laches.

While finding the delay of 11 months unreasonable, the Board concluded that the respondent suffered no substantial prejudice or adverse reliance that would make it unfair to proceed.

The respondent's motion to dismiss was denied, though the Board noted the delay could affect the ultimate remedy and the assessment of the complaint's merits.

The applicant trade unions referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the respondent employer violated provincial collective agreements.

The employer argued it was not bound by any collective agreement, asserting that a 'working agreement' signed in 1960 with the Council was invalid because the Council was not a certified council of trade unions and the employer had no employees represented by the unions at the time of signing.

The Board held that the working agreement constituted a valid voluntary recognition agreement entered into by the Council as an agent for its affiliated trade unions.

Applying the Nicholls-Radtke principle, the Board found that signing the agreement on the understanding that the unions would supply competent workmen did not constitute unlawful employer support.

The Board directed the matter to be listed for continuation of hearing on the merits.

The applicant employee sought to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights under section 59 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the union failed to give notice to bargain within 60 days of certification.

The union had met with employees and agreed to delay bargaining until a pattern settlement was reached with other employers in the area.

The Board found that the union had not slept on its rights, as the delay was intentional, bona fide, and agreed upon by the employees present at the meeting.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent teachers employed by the respondent at Humewood House School.

The respondent objected, arguing the applicant was not a trade union under the Labour Relations Act because it included principals and vice-principals who exercise managerial functions.

The Board questioned its own jurisdiction, noting that the Labour Relations Act does not apply to teachers as defined in the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act.

The Board declined to accept the parties' agreement on jurisdiction and the appropriate bargaining unit, and directed a further hearing to receive evidence on these issues.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit comprised solely of the respondent's full-time dispatchers.

The respondent employer argued that dispatchers exercised managerial functions and that a dispatcher-only unit was inappropriate.

The Board found that dispatchers shared a greater community of interest with office and sales staff than with tow truck operators, and that carving out a dispatcher-only unit would lead to undue fragmentation.

The Board concluded the proposed unit was not appropriate for collective bargaining and dismissed the application.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of attendants employed by Nucleus Housing Inc., a non-profit corporation providing personal attendant care to quadriplegic tenants.

The respondent argued the attendants were domestics employed in private homes by the individual tenants, and thus excluded from the Labour Relations Act under section 2(a).

The Board found that Nucleus, not the tenants, controlled the elements characteristic of an employer-employee relationship.

The Board concluded the attendants were employees of Nucleus and granted the application for certification.

The applicant employees applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

Although the employees initiated the petition independently, the employer subsequently provided financial assistance to the employees to attend the Board hearing in Toronto.

The Board found that this financial assistance constituted employer interference under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act, as it aligned the employer with the employees seeking termination.

Consequently, the Board could not rely on the petition as a voluntary expression of the employees' wishes and dismissed the application.

The complainant, a unionized painter, alleged that his union breached section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to refer him to a job opening at a company where he had previously worked.

The union's business manager had referred other out-of-work members who had established relationships with the company and had been part of its crew in the previous season.

The Board found that the hiring hall was not operated on a strict 'first in, first out' basis, and that the business manager's exercise of discretion in balancing various equitable factors was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The complaint was dismissed.

The intervener challenged the applicant union's membership evidence in a certification application, alleging that two employees did not pay the required one dollar initiation fee.

The Board found that one employee did not pay the fee, invalidating his card, but concluded the collector's error was innocent rather than deliberate.

The Board accepted the remaining membership evidence, finding the applicant met the 35% threshold required for a pre-hearing representation vote, and directed that the sealed ballots be counted.

The applicant sought to set aside a representation vote that resulted in the union retaining its bargaining rights, alleging that the union circulated misleading pre-vote propaganda.

The applicant claimed the propaganda falsely characterized the vote as a union versus management scenario and suggested employees' jobs would be in jeopardy if the union were decertified.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the alleged statements were not of such a nature that they would overpower the critical faculties of the employee voters.