Employment and Labour Law

The applicant filed an application for certification.

The Board required the applicant to prove its status as a trade union under the Labour Relations Act.

Evidence showed the applicant's constitution was adopted after the application was filed, and membership evidence predated the constitution without reaffirmation.

The Board found the applicant was not a trade union at the time of filing and dismissed the application.

The complainant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by withdrawing his discharge grievance without adequate investigation.

The complainant had been terminated for absence without a satisfactory reason, despite providing medical notes.

The union withdrew the grievance after a doctor could not verify the illness for the entire period, but failed to contact other doctors or consult the complainant before doing so.

The Board found the union's conduct to be perfunctory and arbitrary.

The Board ordered the grievance to proceed to arbitration, with the union liable for a portion of any resulting compensation due to its breach and the complainant's delay.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the respondent was bound by a collective agreement between the union and Dominion Stores Limited, arguing that the respondent's leasing of premises formerly operated by Dominion constituted a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the respondent's operation of an ethnically oriented supermarket at the location was an expansion of its own pre-existing business rather than a continuation of Dominion's business.

The Board noted the hiatus between operations, the extensive renovations, and the lack of transfer of goodwill or assets other than the lease.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent school board violated the Labour Relations Act by altering the working conditions and pay of school bus drivers during a statutory freeze period and to interfere with the union's formation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the changes were motivated by legitimate budgetary concerns following reduced provincial grants, not anti-union animus.

Furthermore, while the changes did constitute an alteration of employment conditions, the firm decision to implement them was communicated to the employees prior to the commencement of the statutory freeze period triggered by the union's second certification application.

The complaints were dismissed.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated sections 64 and 66(c) of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer's executive director threatened to discipline the local union president if he did not attend a meeting to discuss a conversation the president had with a fellow employee regarding internal union affairs and a potential breach of confidentiality.

The Board held that the employer's use of disciplinary threats to compel a union official to divulge information about the discharge of his union responsibilities constituted unlawful interference with the administration of the trade union.

A declaration of violation was issued.

The union applied for certification of a single bargaining unit comprising office, clerical, technical, and food services employees at Ryerson Polytechnical Institute.

The employer argued for three separate units dividing career and non-career employees, and sought to exclude employees funded by special projects.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that a single, comprehensive bargaining unit was appropriate, finding a shared community of interest among career and long-term non-career employees and emphasizing the Board's aversion to fragmented bargaining structures.

The Board also refused to exclude special project employees, noting the source of funding does not negate their right to collective bargaining.

The complainants alleged that the respondent union locals violated a written settlement of an earlier unfair labour practice complaint regarding the integration of seniority lists following a hospital merger.

The settlement required the union to hold specific meetings to recommend integrated seniority before a ratification vote.

The Board found that the union executive held additional, exclusionary meetings that undermined the settlement, thereby violating section 89(7) of the Labour Relations Act.

The majority of the Board ordered that the integrated seniority lists be implemented as if the vote had succeeded, while the Vice-Chairman dissented on remedy, preferring to set aside the settlement and hear the original complaint on its merits.

The intervening employees requested an adjournment of the hearing because they received only seven days' notice and their counsel needed more time to prepare.

The Board granted the adjournment.

The complainant then requested that the intervening employees pay its costs for the day.

The Board denied the request, noting that it was not satisfied with the amount of notice given to the intervening employees and that it would be inappropriate to exact costs as a condition of the adjournment.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent drivers of the respondent taxi company.

Preliminary issues arose regarding the Board's constitutional jurisdiction, given the company's extra-provincial trips to Quebec, and the status of two interveners.

The Board adjourned the constitutional issue pending further evidence and the outcome of a parallel federal application.

The Board denied intervener status to the Ottawa Taxi Owners and Brokers Association, finding it had only a commercial interest, and to the Canadian Union of Operating Engineers, finding it failed to demonstrate it represented the affected employees or that its collective agreement covered them.

The union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of hospital service workers, excluding technical and paramedical employees.

The hospital argued that technical and paramedical personnel share a community of interest with service workers and should be included in the unit.

The Board expressed concern over the potential delay and cost of resolving the status of numerous classifications.

The Board directed the parties to investigate and particularize the classifications in dispute to narrow the issues before a further hearing.

The applicant, a Teaching Master and practicing Roman Catholic, applied for a religious exemption from paying union dues under section 53 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act.

He objected to the union's adoption of a resolution supporting a woman's right to choose abortion, arguing it fundamentally conflicted with his religious beliefs.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the applicant's beliefs were sincere and religious, the application was premature because the union had not yet expended any funds or taken concrete action on the resolution.

The application was dismissed without prejudice to re-file if further developments warranted.

The complainant, a long-service employee with an alcohol problem, was discharged by Ontario Hydro after failing to comply with the conditions of a mandatory referral to the Employee Assistance Program.

The respondent union refused to file a grievance on his behalf, relying on a policy agreement with the employer not to grieve discipline arising from proper mandatory referrals under the Program.

The complainant alleged the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union's policy was based on sound labour relations principles (supporting 'constructive coercion' in addiction treatment) and that its application to the complainant was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

During a grievance arbitration hearing, the applicant union requested a bench warrant for a witness who failed to attend after being served with a subpoena duces tecum.

The Board declined to issue the warrant, finding that serving the witness on the afternoon prior to the hearing did not constitute reasonable notice, and therefore the witness was not duly served.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed an unfair labour practice by refusing to discharge two employees who had been expelled from the union for failing to pay a fine.

The fine was levied after the employees were observed speaking to the employer's president during a lockout.

The employer argued that under the collective agreement, 'membership in good standing' was defined solely by the payment of dues, which were still being deducted.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding the employer's interpretation of the collective agreement reasonable and not motivated by any intention to interfere with the union's internal affairs.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employers violated the collective agreement.

Prior to the hearing, counsel for the parties negotiated a settlement.

The respondent later argued its counsel lacked the authority to bind Min-A-Mart Ltd. The Board found that the respondent's counsel had ostensible authority to settle the matter on behalf of both employers and that the applicant reasonably relied on this representation.

The Board enforced the settlement and declared Min-A-Mart Ltd. bound by the provincial collective agreement.

The complainant filed a second complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act alleging harassment by her foreman.

The complaint did not specify any sections of the Act that were violated, nor did it contain a concise statement of the acts complained of.

The Board found that the complaint did not make out a prima facie case for a breach of the Act and dismissed it without a hearing pursuant to section 71 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent employer requested reconsideration of a Board decision awarding compensation and compound interest for a breach of the collective agreement's hiring hall provisions.

The employer argued that the evidence was hearsay, that interest was improperly calculated, and that the award constituted a double payment of benefits.

The Board rejected most of the employer's arguments, noting they could have been raised at the original hearing.

However, the Board decided to modify the interest calculation from compound to simple interest, reducing the total amount payable to the union in trust for the aggrieved employees to $7,256.36.

The complainant, a former head baker at a hospital, alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to arbitrate three grievances.

The grievances related to a disciplinary warning, a layoff due to technological change, and a claim for a skilled trades allowance.

The Board reviewed the union's handling of each grievance and found that the union had considered the merits and balanced the individual's interests against collective concerns.

The Board concluded that the union's decisions not to proceed to arbitration were not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant, a union health and safety representative, alleged that the respondent, a Ministry of Labour manager, violated sections 70 and 3 of the Labour Relations Act by threatening to dissolve the joint health and safety committee and threatening the complainant with 'big trouble' if he shared committee information with the NDP.

The Board found that the respondent's statements, while perhaps ill-advised, were motivated by a genuine desire to improve the dysfunctional 'internal responsibility system' at the workplace and to further the objectives of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, rather than to intimidate the complainant or cover up employer violations.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainants filed a work assignment dispute under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent union argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the pre-conditions for a complaint were not met.

The Board found that the respondent union had filed a grievance demanding that the subcontractor assign the disputed work to its members rather than to members of another union.

Consequently, the Board ruled that the union had required an employer to assign work to its members, satisfying the pre-conditions of section 91(1), and affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the complaint.