Employment and Labour Law

The complainant, a doorman, was terminated by the respondent hotel following an altercation with a guest.

The respondent union investigated the grievance but ultimately decided not to proceed to arbitration, citing the complainant's disciplinary record and the merits of the case.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union acted arbitrarily by failing to properly notify the complainant of the times and places of the Executive and membership meetings where his grievance was considered, depriving him of his right to present his case.

The Board ordered the union to provide the complainant an opportunity to attend and present his case at both meetings.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer breached section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to bargain in good faith for a first collective agreement at its Cambridge branch.

The employer insisted on terms similar to an existing agreement at another branch, which largely mirrored its corporate-wide policies for non-unionized employees, and refused to make significant concessions.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, holding that the employer's conduct amounted to lawful hard bargaining in pursuit of its own self-interest and legitimate business objectives, rather than a refusal to recognize the union or conclude an agreement.

The applicant union sought declarations that Tanner Industries was a successor and related employer to Do-Tan Manufacturing Limited under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

Do-Tan had ceased operations and its assets were sold off.

J.R. Tanner, a former principal of Do-Tan, secured customer commitments and transferred equipment to a new company, Tanner Industries, owned by his family.

The Board found that a definable part of Do-Tan's business, including equipment, know-how, and customer contacts, was transferred to Tanner Industries.

The Board declared Tanner Industries a successor employer bound by the collective agreement, but declined to exercise its discretion to make a related employer declaration.

The applicant union brought applications under sections 1(4) and 63 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging a sale of a business and/or related employer status between Harley Transport Limited, Bryan Cathcart, and Ottor Forwarders Ltd. Harley Transport had previously serviced Ottor's trucking routes but subsequently arranged for the work to be performed by Bryan Cathcart, the son of Harley Transport's president, using leased equipment.

The Board dismissed the applications with respect to Ottor Forwarders, finding no related employer status or sale of a business.

However, the Board found that Harley Transport and Bryan Cathcart were related employers under common control and direction, and that a sale of part of a business had occurred.

The Board exercised its discretion to declare them related employers bound by the collective agreement to protect the union's bargaining rights.

The union applied for certification.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that employees who had received notice of termination should not be counted as employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board ruled that since the individuals were at work on the date of the application, they must be counted as employees.

Following this ruling, the union requested leave to withdraw its application.

Given the stage of the proceedings, the Board denied the request to withdraw and dismissed the application.

The applicant union claimed that a former contractor transferred its business to the respondent when the respondent won a competitive tender for a food services contract at a correctional centre.

The union argued that the respondent was bound by the existing collective agreement as a successor employer.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the loss of a contract by tender to a competitor does not constitute a sale or transfer of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, relying on its previous decision in Metropolitan Parking Inc.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of employees in the respondent's Distribution Services Division.

The respondent argued that the Board lacked constitutional jurisdiction because its transportation operations extended interprovincially, falling under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act.

The Board found that the respondent was not a common carrier and its transportation operations were merely an in-house delivery arm integrated into its primary business of buying and selling goods.

Therefore, the operations fell under provincial jurisdiction.

The Board appointed a Board Officer to inquire into the duties and status of several challenged employees.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer failed to hire the grievor, a black carpenter, because of his race or colour, contrary to the collective agreement.

The grievor had repeatedly applied for work at a construction site and was told there was no work, but minutes later a white carpenter was hired.

The employer claimed the white carpenter was hired because the superintendent knew his work from a previous project.

The Board found the employer's explanation lacked credibility, noting inconsistencies in the superintendent's testimony and his failure to acknowledge the grievor's recent employment with the same employer.

The Board concluded that the refusal to hire was discriminatory and upheld the grievance, remaining seized of the remedy.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

A group of objecting employees filed two statements of desire.

The second statement was delivered to the Board's offices after hours on the terminal date and left at the reception desk with a security guard who was not a Board employee.

The Board held that physical delivery to its premises constituted receipt under Rule 75(1)(a), making the filing timely.

The union argued the statements were involuntary because the employer had recently introduced written disciplinary warnings.

The Board rejected this argument, finding the employees were reacting to the behavior of union supporters rather than employer coercion.

Given the overlap between union members and objectors, the Board exercised its discretion to order a representation vote.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at Markham Hydro Electric Commission.

The union filed membership evidence demonstrating support from more than 55% of the employees.

However, a group of employees filed a petition objecting to the certification, which would normally prompt the Board to order a representation vote if found to be voluntary.

The Board determined that the petition was not a voluntary expression of employee wishes because it was prepared and circulated on company time, using company resources, and in the presence of a management foreman, creating a perception of management involvement.

The Board disregarded the petition and granted certification without a vote.

One Board member dissented, arguing that a secret ballot vote should have been ordered.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer failed to bargain in good faith during negotiations for a renewal collective agreement, leading to a prolonged strike.

The union argued that the employer engaged in surface bargaining, withdrew previous offers, and delayed responding to union proposals.

The Board found that the employer's initial hard bargaining and subsequent changes in position due to economic circumstances did not amount to bad faith.

However, the Board held that the employer violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to promptly respond to the union's fresh proposals presented in September 1983.

The Board issued a declaration of this violation but declined to award damages, noting that both parties shared responsibility for the breakdown in negotiations.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a group of employees of the respondent freight forwarding company.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that its operations fell under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867, because it operated an international distribution network extending beyond the province, or alternatively, was an integral part of such an undertaking.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the objection, finding that the respondent's business was entirely contractual and it did not own or operate the physical carriage equipment crossing provincial or national boundaries.

The Board concluded that the respondent was not a federal undertaking nor integral to one, and therefore its labour relations remained subject to provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement by using non-union workers to install overhead doors on two projects.

The respondent argued the union's evidence was largely hearsay and inadmissible.

The Board held that under the Labour Relations Act, it has the discretion to admit and rely on hearsay evidence if it is logically probative and the opposing party has a fair opportunity to contradict it.

Relying on the uncontradicted hearsay evidence, the Board found the respondent violated the collective agreement and ordered it to pay damages for the lost man-hours.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent carpenters employed by the respondents in the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector, as well as all employees in all other sectors in Board Area 16.

The interveners argued that under the Board's displacement policy, the applicant must seek to represent all employees in the existing concrete forming bargaining unit.

The Board held that the requirements of section 144(1) of the Labour Relations Act take precedence over the displacement policy, allowing the applicant to carve out its traditional craft.

However, the Board found that a unit combining carpenters in the ICI sector with all trades in other sectors was inappropriate, as it would require complex sectoral determinations.

The Board determined the appropriate unit under section 144(1) to be carpenters and carpenters' apprentices in both the ICI sector and all other sectors in Board Area 16, while allowing the application to be treated as simultaneously seeking a separate unit for other trades under section 144(3).

The applicant trade union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The Mechanical Contractors Association of Ontario (MCAO), the designated employer bargaining agency for the ICI sector, sought to be made a party to the proceedings.

The MCAO argued it had a direct interest because it would become the employer's bargaining agent if certification was granted, and because the threshold issue of whether the work was construction work affected its members.

The Board denied the MCAO's request, finding that an employer bargaining agency's statutory role is limited to collective bargaining and does not grant it a direct legal interest in certification proceedings or the determination of threshold jurisdictional issues.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union violated its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by dropping his grievance at the fourth stage.

The grievance arose after the complainant was bumped from his position by a more senior employee, despite the complainant's assertion of greater ability and experience.

The union decided not to proceed to arbitration, relying on its established policy that seniority should govern when two employees are at the top rate of their classification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union had directed its mind to the merits of the grievance and made a reasoned decision based on the best interests of the bargaining unit as a whole.

The Board held that the union's preference for seniority over ability in these circumstances was a cogent labour relations reason and did not constitute arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.

The applicants, four fire alarm technicians, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union raised a jurisdictional challenge, arguing the applicants were 'full-time fire fighters' under the Fire Departments Act and thus excluded from the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the three full-time technicians performed duties integral to fire protection and fell within the statutory definition of full-time fire fighters, excluding them from the Act.

However, the Board held that the single part-time technician was not excluded and allowed the termination application to proceed with respect to her alone.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent, who operated a bus terminal exclusively for Greyhound Lines of Canada Limited.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that its operations fell within federal jurisdiction, as Greyhound is an inter-provincial carrier.

The Board found that the respondent's ticketing, parcel handling, and maintenance functions were an integral and essential part of Greyhound's inter-provincial operation.

Consequently, the Board determined that the respondent's labour relations were subject to federal jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer retirement home threatened and implemented an unlawful lockout by deciding to subcontract all bargaining unit work due to severe financial difficulties.

The employer had experienced escalating operating losses and determined that subcontracting was necessary to reduce labour costs.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer's decision was a final and irrevocable economic choice rather than a tactic to compel employee concessions or preserve the employment relationship on different terms.

Consequently, the conduct did not meet the statutory definition of a lockout.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and a representation vote was held.

Three ballots were segregated due to disputes over whether the individuals exercised managerial functions.

After the non-segregated ballots were counted, revealing a majority in favour of the union, the applicant conceded that one of the disputed individuals exercised managerial functions.

The respondent employer argued the applicant could not change its position after the vote results were known.

The Board held that a party may agree with the opposing party's position at any stage.

As the remaining two disputed ballots could no longer affect the applicant's right to certification, the Board certified the applicant on an interim basis and appointed an officer to inquire into the remaining disputed individuals and the part-time employee issue.