Employment and Labour Law

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent, a successor employer, refused to recognize the union, apply the collective agreement, or retain the predecessor's employees.

The Board held that under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, a successor employer inherits the predecessor's obligations, including the collective agreement.

The Board found that the predecessor's employees could not be terminated without just cause merely because of the impending sale, and the successor was obligated to retain them in accordance with the collective agreement's seniority provisions.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the respondent employer's failure to remit welfare plan contributions and union dues in a timely manner.

The Board previously directed payment of the outstanding principal amounts but reserved on the enforceability of the collective agreement's penalty provisions, which imposed percentage charges and a flat fee for late payments and arbitration.

The Board held that the provisions were enforceable as genuine pre-estimates of liquidated damages rather than unenforceable penalties, noting the difficulty of quantifying intangible damages to labour-management harmony and the union's costs of collection and arbitration.

The employer was ordered to pay the additional amounts.

The complainants successfully brought a duty of fair representation complaint against their union, resulting in an order restoring their lost seniority.

A group of employees whose relative seniority was adversely affected by this restoration requested a reconsideration, arguing they were denied natural justice because they did not receive notice of the original hearing.

The Board dismissed the request, holding that the objecting employees were allied in interest with the union regarding the substantive issue.

Notice to the union, as their statutory bargaining agent, was sufficient notice to the employees themselves.

The applicant general contractor sought a cease-and-desist direction against the respondent union for picketing at a shopping mall construction site.

The union, which had no collective agreement with the applicant, picketed the site to protest the use of a non-union electrical subcontractor, causing unionized trades to refuse to cross the picket line.

The Board found that the picketing constituted acts that the union knew or ought to have known would cause an unlawful strike by other trades.

The Board issued a direction ordering the union to cease its picketing activities at the site.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of carpenters and carpenters' apprentices in the construction industry.

The respondent employer argued the unit should be restricted to 'registered' apprentices, which the Board rejected.

The parties also disputed whether two employees, Lauzon and Campbell, were performing carpentry work on the application date.

The Board found that Lauzon was working as a carpenter and included him in the unit, but concluded that Campbell was working as a carpenter's helper and excluded him.

Finding that the union had between 45 and 55 percent membership support in the four-employee unit, the Board directed a representation vote.

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

The parties disputed the inclusion of several positions.

The Board excluded the executive secretaries to the Vice-Presidents of Research and Development and Manufacturing, finding they were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

The Board also excluded product managers, the data processing manager, and the manager of laboratory/quality assurance, finding they exercised managerial functions.

The traffic manager, credit manager, and purchasing agent were included in the unit.

As the union filed membership evidence for less than 55% of the determined bargaining unit, the Board ordered a representation vote.

The complainant, a part-time dockhand, alleged that the union and employer breached sections 66(b) and 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

He claimed the union failed to represent him fairly by not consulting part-time employees during bargaining, not negotiating just cause protections for them, and refusing to file a grievance when he was removed from the part-time list.

The Board found that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 by failing to consult part-time employees prior to or during collective bargaining.

However, the Board dismissed the allegations regarding the failure to negotiate just cause protections and the refusal to file a grievance, finding the union correctly interpreted the collective agreement as not providing substantive discharge protections for part-time employees.

The section 66(b) complaint was also dismissed.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of production employees.

The parties agreed on all matters except whether the 'chemical control supervisor' should be excluded.

The respondent initially sought exclusion on managerial grounds under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, but later changed its position to argue a lack of community of interest.

The Board permitted the change in argument as the applicant did not object during the Board Officer's examination.

Based on the Officer's report, the Board found the chemical control supervisor to be a technical employee with a greater community of interest with office and sales staff than with production employees, and excluded the position from the bargaining unit.

A certificate was issued for the agreed unit.

The applicant union brought an application under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, alleging a sale of business and related employer status between the respondents.

The preliminary issue was whether the respondent, David Yan & Partner of Canada Limited, was bound by a collective agreement with the applicant.

The Board found that the respondent had voluntarily recognized the union by joining the Toronto Construction Association, which subsequently entered into a collective agreement on its behalf.

The Board concluded that the respondent was bound by the current industrial, commercial, and institutional collective agreement and directed the matter to be listed for a continuation of the hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued several decisions regarding applications for certification and unfair labour practice complaints.

In the first case, the Board found that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act when three managers obtained signatures on a petition opposing the trade union.

The Board directed a representation vote and ordered remedial measures, including a posting and union access to employees.

Other decisions addressed the appropriate bargaining unit for a specialized business centre in a department store, a duty of fair representation complaint involving municipal technical employees, a sale of a business application concerning a retail food store, and the exclusion of a chemical control supervisor from a bargaining unit based on community of interest.

The union applied for certification and requested automatic certification under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging employer interference.

The Board found that three department managers violated section 64 by directing employees during working hours to sign an anti-union petition.

However, the Board concluded that the employer's conduct was not so severe as to prevent the true wishes of the employees from being ascertained in a representation vote.

The Board ordered remedial measures, including a cease and desist order, a workplace posting, and union access to employees, and directed that a representation vote be held.

The applicant employees applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union under section 57(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The sole issue was whether the petition in support of the application represented the voluntary wishes of the employees.

The Board found that the petition was spearheaded by an employee who was a member of the religious order that managed the employer and who had recently stepped down from a management position.

Given this individual's unique status and close ties to management, the Board concluded that the petition's voluntariness was critically undermined.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant trade union sought a declaration that the respondent was bound by its collective agreement with Dominion Stores Limited, alleging a sale of business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent had opened an Italian-style supermarket in the same shopping plaza premises previously occupied by Dominion, after Dominion surrendered its lease and the respondent entered into a new lease with the landlord.

The respondent also purchased some of Dominion's leftover fixtures.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the transactions were independent and the respondent's presence represented the expansion of its existing parallel business rather than the purchase of Dominion's business.

The applicant union sought relief under sections 1(4), 63, and 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

Local 800 sought status to intervene based on a maintenance agreement with the respondent employer.

The Board found that the maintenance agreement was signed when there were no employees at work and Local 800 did not subsequently supply members of its own union for all covered trades, constituting employer support under section 48(a) of the Act.

Consequently, the agreement was not a valid collective agreement, and Local 800 was denied status to intervene.

Local 800 and the respondents requested an adjournment to challenge the ruling in court.

The Board denied the adjournment, finding that the balance of convenience favoured continuing the proceedings to avoid prejudice to the applicant.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 57 of the Labour Relations Act to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The Board determined that the application was timely, finding that a prior memorandum of agreement established the true term of the collective agreement.

The Board accepted the employee petition as a voluntary signification that they no longer wished to be represented by the union.

Finding that at least 45 per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit had signed the petition, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

One Board member dissented.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of full-time and part-time sales staff at the respondent's retail store.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit descriptions, except for the sales staff in the newly created Business Centre.

The respondent argued that the Business Centre staff should be excluded due to their specialized skills, distinct commission structure, and flexible hours.

The Board rejected this argument, noting its policy against fragmented, departmental bargaining units.

The Board found that the differences in working conditions were matters of degree and that the Business Centre staff shared sufficient community of interest with the broader sales unit.

Certificates were issued for the agreed-upon full-time and part-time units.

The Board previously found that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation towards the complainant technical and professional employees.

In this hearing to determine the appropriate remedy and to consider an application for certification by the complainants' newly formed association, the Board declined to fragment the existing bargaining unit.

The Board also declined to award damages, finding no causal link between the union's breach and the final wage settlement.

Instead, the Board ordered the restructuring of the union's bargaining committee to ensure proportional representation for the higher-rated employees and ordered the posting of a notice acknowledging the breach.

The applicant union applied for certification for two bargaining units of the respondent's employees shortly after a related union lost a representation vote for an all-employee unit.

The respondent argued the Board should refuse to entertain the new applications under section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that the two unions have separate and distinct status under the Act, and the bar imposed on the first union did not apply to the applicant.

However, the Board appointed an officer to inquire into the appropriateness of the smaller bargaining units sought by the applicant.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent five truck drivers employed by the respondent milk transport company.

The parties disputed the appropriate geographic description of the bargaining unit.

The respondent argued for the Board's standard municipality-based units, which would have fragmented the five employees into multiple units, some with only one employee.

The Board departed from its general practice, finding that the employees, though residing in different municipalities, all worked within the same general area and were part of a single integrated operation.

The Board defined the bargaining unit to encompass employees working in and out of the Regional Municipalities of York and Durham, and granted the certificate.

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

The complainant had been deemed to have quit by the employer after failing to provide an original medical certificate.

The union conceded it breached section 68 at a membership meeting where the decision not to arbitrate was made.

The Board found the union failed to consider the complainant's exemplary employment history and the circumstances of her illness, and allowed a union steward with a conflict of interest to influence the decision.

The Board ordered the union to refer the grievance to arbitration, directed the parties to waive time limits, and ordered the union to pay compensation for the period of delay if the grievance succeeds.