Employment and Labour Law

The applicant union alleged that a 'sale of a business' occurred when the respondent purchased a tavern that had been closed for several months after the previous owner defaulted.

The respondent argued that no business existed to be sold and highlighted renovations and a change in entertainment.

The Board found that a sale of a business had taken place, as the essential assets, including the liquor licence, were transferred and the premises continued to operate as a tavern.

The union's bargaining rights were declared to continue.

The applicant brought an application under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act seeking a declaration that it is under the direction and control of the Crown in Right of Ontario and that they are related employers.

The Crown challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the Labour Relations Act does not bind the Crown pursuant to section 11 of the Interpretation Act.

The Board agreed, finding that the Labour Relations Act is not binding on the Crown.

The Board concluded it had no jurisdiction to find the Crown to be a related employer or bound by a collective agreement, and terminated the proceedings.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees at a Swiss Chalet restaurant operated by the respondent.

The incumbent trade union, which previously held bargaining rights, advised the Board that it no longer wished to assert those rights and did not oppose the applicant's certification.

The Board considered whether its usual practice of ordering a representation vote in displacement applications should apply when the incumbent abandons its rights.

Finding no labour relations policy requiring a vote in such circumstances, and noting the applicant had established sufficient membership support, the Board exercised its discretion to certify the applicant without a representation vote.

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

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit descriptions except for the inclusion of front desk staff.

The union argued that front desk staff lacked a community of interest with the service employees and should be excluded.

The respondent and objecting employees argued for their inclusion to avoid undue fragmentation.

The Board held that the front desk staff's clerical and administrative duties, along with their physical separation, demonstrated a lack of community of interest with the service unit.

The Board excluded the front desk staff from the bargaining units, with one member dissenting on the basis of undue fragmentation.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a group of taxi drivers and owner-operators.

The union argued that the three respondent taxi companies should be treated as one employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act and that the owner-operators, as dependent contractors, should be included in a mixed bargaining unit.

The respondents failed to attend the hearing.

Based on the uncontradicted evidence, the Board found that the respondents carried on related activities under common control and declared them to be one employer.

The Board also found a mixed unit appropriate and granted interim certification to the union, appointing an Officer to resolve disputes over the precise composition of the bargaining unit.

The complainant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed his complaint against the respondent unions for alleged violations of sections 68 and 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

The original complaint was dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

In his request for reconsideration, the complainant argued he had not received a request for particulars and explained why he had not initially named Local 493.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the complainant had not raised any new evidence or arguments that could not have been raised at the original hearing.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated sections 64, 66, and 89(7) of the Labour Relations Act by laying off a nurse and abolishing the head nurse position.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing that the prior minutes of settlement ceased to operate once a collective agreement was signed, and that the Board should defer the remaining allegations to arbitration.

The Board held that the minutes of settlement, which resolved a prior statutory freeze violation, were of finite duration and could not be enforced under section 89(7) after the collective agreement took effect.

However, the Board declined to defer the remaining unfair labour practice allegations to arbitration, noting the early stage of the parties' collective bargaining relationship and the potential inadequacy of the arbitral remedy.

The section 89(7) complaint was dismissed, and the remaining allegations were referred to the Registrar for a hearing.

The applicant union applied under section 63(6) of the Labour Relations Act, arguing that following the respondent city's purchase of a transit business five and a half years earlier, there had been sufficient intermingling of employees to warrant a declaration altering bargaining rights.

The Board dismissed the application, holding that section 63(6) is designed to address representational problems closely related in time to a sale.

Given the significant lapse of time and the fact that collective agreements had been negotiated in the interim, the Board found it inappropriate to exercise its discretion, noting that any current representational conflicts should be resolved through grievance arbitration or jurisdictional dispute proceedings.

In an application for certification, the Board previously directed a pre-hearing representation vote and ordered the segregation of ballots for certain employee categories due to disputes over the bargaining unit description.

The applicant union and respondent employer subsequently agreed on the bargaining unit, and the applicant requested that the ballots of maintenance employees no longer be segregated, arguing the interveners had no status to object.

The Board rejected this late submission, noting the interveners arguably had status, and refused to revoke its direction to segregate the ballots pending a final determination of the appropriate bargaining unit.

The Toronto Transit Commission applied for a cease and desist direction, alleging that transit drivers engaged in an unlawful strike by refusing to cross a picket line at an Eaton's store, and that the union encouraged this action.

The union argued that the employer had a 30-year past practice of accommodating drivers who refused to cross picket lines.

The Board held that a concerted refusal to cross a picket line constitutes a strike under the Labour Relations Act, and that past practice or private arrangements cannot override the absolute statutory prohibition on strikes under the T.T.C. Act.

The Board issued declarations of an unlawful strike and cease and desist directions against the employees and the union.

The complainant union sought an interim order under section 91(8) of the Labour Relations Act regarding a work assignment dispute over the stripping of concrete forms.

The employer had initially assigned the work to a composite crew of labourers and carpenters.

Following a work stoppage by the carpenters, the employer reassigned the work to specific trades.

The respondent union challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing a strike was not imminent.

The Board found that the walk-out constituted a strike and that the threat of a strike remained imminent if the composite crew was reinstated.

The Board held it had jurisdiction and issued an interim order directing the employer to resume using a composite crew, emphasizing the policy objective of not rewarding work stoppages in jurisdictional disputes.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent equipment operators employed by the respondent in the construction industry.

The union filed membership evidence for more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit.

The respondent employer requested that the Board exercise its discretion to direct a representation vote, arguing that there was an impending build-up of the workforce, that employees were not told the membership documents would be used for certification, and that the union misrepresented the effects of certification.

The Board rejected these arguments, noting its practice in the construction industry of not considering future workforce build-ups, and finding no fundamental misrepresentation or coercion by the union.

The Board declined to direct a vote and certified the union outright.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of a business occurred between Doran Construction Limited and the Taggart group, and that the Taggart companies were related employers.

Doran, facing financial difficulties, wound down its operations and sold its equipment to Taggart.

Doran's principals also agreed to provide part-time assistance to Taggart to help them enter the general contracting business.

The Board found that Taggart acquired the built-up experience, familiarity, and economic organization of Doran, constituting a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

Taggart General Contractors Limited was declared bound by the applicant's collective agreement.

The related employer application regarding Taggart Construction Limited was dismissed as the companies operated separately.

The union brought an application for a declaration of a successor employer and an unfair labour practice complaint following the transfer of a nursing home licence from an insolvent operator, through a receiver-manager, to Caressant Care.

The Board found that the transfer of the licence constituted a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also determined that Caressant Care was the true employer during the interim management period.

However, the Board dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint, finding no improper motive in Caressant Care's offer of part-time employment to the former employees.

Due to the intermingling of employees from the unionized and non-unionized operations, the Board ordered a representation vote.

The complainant, a union member, filed a complaint under section 85 of the Labour Relations Act alleging that the respondent union failed to furnish him with an audited financial statement.

The union had provided a financial statement with 'Accountants' Comments' and argued that the statement was audited by the union's treasurer and the membership.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that an 'audit' requires an independent and competent examination of the financial records, which was not satisfied by the treasurer's self-review or the membership's vote.

The Board directed the union to file and furnish a financial statement audited by a licensed public accountant.

The employer filed a complaint alleging the union violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to negotiate a renewal of the collective agreement for the Kitchener plant unless bargaining was conducted on a national basis for a master agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union's insistence on national bargaining to the point of impasse was inconsistent with the scheme of the Act, which limits bargaining rights to the provincial jurisdiction.

The Board directed the union to cease its violation and return to the bargaining table to negotiate a lawful collective agreement for the Kitchener plant.

During an unfair labour practice complaint regarding a union hiring hall, the complainants sought to introduce a transcript of evidence given by the respondent in prior criminal proceedings.

The respondents objected, arguing the transcript was inadmissible and relying on section 13 of the Charter.

The Board ruled the transcript admissible under its broad evidentiary powers, finding that section 13 of the Charter does not apply to quasi-civil, compensatory proceedings before the Board.

The Board also denied the complainants' request for costs.

The complainant notified the Board that the respondent employer failed to comply with a previous Board order directing payment of compensation.

The Board notified the respondent employer, whose counsel admitted non-compliance due to insolvency.

The Board, satisfied that there was non-compliance, directed that its determination be filed with the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Ontario for enforcement pursuant to section 89(6) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant union filed a complaint alleging that the respondent Board of Education engaged in an unlawful lock-out when it laid off all four plumbers in the bargaining unit without explanation and sub-contracted their work.

The respondent moved for a non-suit, arguing there was no evidence of a lock-out or of a motive to compel or induce employees to refrain from exercising their rights.

The Board rejected the non-suit motion, finding that in the context of a disputed bargaining relationship, the unexplained lay-off was intended to send a message to the employees to change their union's bargaining position.

As the respondent elected not to call evidence, the Board drew an adverse inference and declared the lay-off an unlawful lock-out.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether certain supervisors exercised managerial functions.

The respondent employer argued the application was untimely and should not proceed because the parties were engaged in a lawful strike and the supervisors were performing production work.

The Board held that the parties were 'in the course of bargaining' and the application was timely.

The Board noted that evidence of duties performed during the strike was irrelevant, but directed an officer to inquire into the supervisors' regular duties and responsibilities.