Employment and Labour Law

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging the respondent company violated the union security provisions of the collective agreement by hiring two union members directly rather than through a union referral system.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement did not require the company to hire exclusively through the union or mandate a referral slip system.

Furthermore, the Board found that no functioning hiring hall or out-of-work list actually existed in the area at the time.

The company's direct hiring of the union members was consistent with established area practice and did not breach the agreement.

The Carpenters' union applied for certification of employees of Construction P.H. Grager Inc. The Labourers' union requested reconsideration, arguing they already held bargaining rights through a prior company, Pierre A. Gratton Construction Inc., which was a related or successor employer.

The Board found that a sale of a business had occurred under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, as the new company acquired the experience and expertise of the prior company's principal.

Consequently, the Carpenters' application was deemed a displacement application, the previous certificate was rescinded, and a representation vote was ordered.

The applicant union filed an application asserting that a sale of a business occurred between Daal Specialties and the respondent, Collingwood Fabrics Inc. The respondent acknowledged the sale.

However, a group of employees filed a petition seeking to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

The Board held that under section 63(10) of the Labour Relations Act, a union's bargaining rights are protected for one year following notice to bargain to a successor employer.

Consequently, the employee petition for termination was deemed untimely and the Board declined to inquire into it.

A dissenting member would have treated the petition as timely.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the employer terminated two employees and held a captive audience meeting to thwart an organizing campaign.

The Board found the employer's explanation of a work shortage lacked credibility and concluded the terminations and the meeting, which included threats to job security and promises of benefits, violated the Labour Relations Act.

Finding that the employer's substantial misconduct made it unlikely the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained in a representation vote, and that the union had adequate membership support, the Board certified the union under section 8 and ordered reinstatement and compensation for the terminated employees.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of service workers at the respondent hospital.

The hospital argued that the unit should be broader and include various technical, paramedical, and clerical classifications.

The Board reviewed the history and principles of bargaining unit determination in the hospital sector.

It concluded that Registered Nursing Assistants (RNA's) and Nursing Technicians should be included in the service unit due to established collective bargaining practice.

However, other technical personnel, lab assistants, and ward clerks were excluded, as they could appropriately be placed in paramedical or clerical units without affecting the viability of the service unit.

The complainant, a member of the respondent union, filed a complaint under section 85 of the Labour Relations Act seeking the release of the union's audited financial statements.

The union opposed the complaint, arguing that the complainant was acting as an agent for a rival union, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW), which she actively supported.

The Board held that the complainant's support for a rival union did not disentitle her to access the financial information of her own union under section 85.

The Board ordered the respondent union to deliver the audited financial statements to the complainant.

The Communications Workers of Canada applied for certification to represent employees of CTG Telecommunications Systems, an interconnect company that sells, installs, and maintains telephone systems.

The respondent challenged the Ontario Labour Relations Board's jurisdiction, arguing its operations were an integral part of the Bell Canada network and thus fell under federal jurisdiction.

The Board held that the respondent's operations were not vital, essential, or integral to the core federal undertaking of Bell Canada, and therefore fell within provincial jurisdiction.

The Board also determined the composition of the appropriate bargaining unit and ordered a representation vote.

During the hearing of a complaint under section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the complainant sought to compel a Ministry of Labour inspector to testify about his investigation.

The Board ruled that the inspector was not a compellable witness pursuant to section 34(2) of the Act.

The Board found that the information sought fell within the scope of information acquired under the Act, and that protecting the inspector from testifying was necessary to preserve his neutrality and ability to freely obtain information in the workplace.

The applicant union sought to include dispatchers in an all-employee bargaining unit at the respondent automobile club.

The respondent argued that dispatchers shared a greater community of interest with office and clerical staff and should be excluded.

Applying the Usarco criteria, the Board analyzed the nature of the work, conditions of employment, skills, administration, geographic circumstances, and functional coherence.

The Board found that the dispatchers' shift work, geographic location, and functional interdependence with the drivers strongly favoured their inclusion in the bargaining unit.

The Board concluded that the dispatchers shared a community of interest with the other employees in the unit and were an appropriate inclusion.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing the certification, which included signatures of employees who had previously signed union membership cards.

The Board held a hearing to determine whether the petition represented a voluntary change of heart.

The sole witness for the objectors provided inconsistent and implausible testimony regarding the origination and circulation of the petition.

The Board concluded the petition was unreliable and declined to order a representation vote.

As the union demonstrated membership support in excess of fifty-five percent, interim certification was granted pending the resolution of the bargaining unit status of four individuals.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed an unfair labour practice by discharging a union activist for picket line misconduct during a lawful strike.

The grievor had handed a bullet to a non-striking employee and spat in his face.

The union argued the discharge was disproportionate and motivated by anti-union animus.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer met its burden under section 89(5) of the Labour Relations Act to prove the discharge was not tainted by anti-union motive.

The Board concluded the employer's response, whether just or not, was genuinely based on the severe nature of the picket line incident rather than the grievor's union activities.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging that the respondents wrongfully withheld a daily travel allowance of $11.00 from an employee who left his designated assembly point six minutes prior to the end of his shift.

The majority of the Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employee failed to remain at work for his scheduled daily hours as required by the collective agreement to qualify for the allowance.

The withholding of the allowance was deemed a contractual consequence rather than a disciplinary penalty.

A dissenting member would have allowed the grievance, applying the de minimis rule.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of the respondent's employees.

The respondent requested a stay of proceedings pending an application for judicial review, which the Board denied.

The parties disputed the status of four individuals who were employed as students during the summer but had requested to continue working part-time during the school year.

The Board held that employee status is determined as of the application date.

Since the four individuals were 'students employed during the school vacation period' on the application date, they were excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board found that more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant and issued a certificate.

The applicant employee applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The Board found that the employer's president had assisted the applicant by finding a lawyer to represent the employees, and that this involvement was conveyed to the other employees at a meeting held on the employer's premises.

The Board concluded that the employer's conduct interfered with the employees' ability to voluntarily express their wishes.

As the statement of desire was not voluntary, the application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The Board found that not less than 35% of the employees in the voting constituency were members of the applicant.

The Board amended the parties' agreed-upon voting constituency description to replace 'persons covered by subsisting collective agreements' with 'employees in bargaining units for which any trade union held bargaining rights as of January 3, 1985' to avoid ambiguity.

A representation vote was directed.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that two hospitals violated the statutory freeze period under section 13 of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act by increasing employee parking fees during collective bargaining.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the hospitals had a well-established pattern of periodically reviewing and adjusting parking rates.

The Board held that the increases constituted 'business as before' and did not violate the statutory freeze.

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights less than one year after the respondent union was certified.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the application was premature under section 57(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant argued that section 61(3)(a) modified the one-year period because six months had elapsed since the commencement of a legal strike.

The Board held that the one-year protection period under section 57(1) is a minimum that cannot be shortened by section 61(3), and dismissed the application as premature.

The complainant requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsider its decision dismissing his unfair labour practice complaint against the respondent employer.

The complainant sought a new hearing to introduce new evidence, primarily in the form of affidavits obtained shortly after the original hearing.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the new evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence prior to the first hearing and that a party is not entitled to a new hearing simply to correct evidentiary inadequacies or shore up an inadequate case.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description.

The union demonstrated membership support of 75% (86 out of 114 employees).

The respondent employer requested a representation vote, arguing that a projected build-up of the workforce to 244 employees warranted delaying certification.

The Board applied the build-up principle but found that the current workforce was sufficiently representative and the union enjoyed sufficient support to warrant immediate certification without a vote.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union violated section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by permitting members to be hired without referral slips during an emergency repair job, and by failing to secure his employment as a job steward.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union's business manager exercised reasonable discretion to waive strict hiring hall rules in an emergency to promote employment for members.

The Board concluded the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.