Employment and Labour Law

The complainant union filed complaints under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding work assignments by the respondent employers to another union.

The complainant sought directions binding on other jobs and against respondents other than the specific employers complained about.

The Board held that the appropriateness of a direction binding on other jobs under section 91(2) is a matter for the merits hearing.

The Board also ruled that it has jurisdiction under section 91(1) to make directions against persons other than the party being complained about, leaving the application of this jurisdiction to the merits hearing.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the grievor was discharged without just cause.

The employer terminated the grievor for failing to report his absence for three consecutive days, pursuant to a company rule.

The grievor had been injured at work prior to the absences and had reported sick on the first day, but failed to provide an expected return date or report on subsequent days.

The Board found that while the grievor breached the reporting rule, discharge was too severe a penalty given the employer's knowledge of his recent workplace injury.

The Board exercised its discretion to substitute the discharge with a six-week suspension without pay.

The complainant union filed unfair labour practice complaints against Ontario Hydro, EPSCA, and several construction trade unions, alleging violations of multiple sections of the Labour Relations Act arising from the implementation of a Maintenance Assist Agreement for nuclear reactor retubing work.

Ontario Hydro and EPSCA brought a motion to dismiss the complaints.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board allowed the motion and dismissed the complaints, finding that the dispute was fundamentally a jurisdictional dispute over work assignment rather than a representational issue or a violation of bargaining rights under the Act.

A dissenting member would have allowed the complaint to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a unit of employees at the respondent's restaurant.

The incumbent union did not oppose the application and abandoned its bargaining rights.

An intervener union initially alleged employer support for the applicant but later withdrew its intervention and abandoned its opposition following a settlement.

The Board found that the applicant had established sufficient membership support and, given the withdrawal of the intervener and the lack of compelling evidence of employer support, exercised its discretion under section 7(2) of the Labour Relations Act to certify the applicant without a representation vote.

The complainant union (CLAC) sought a declaration that a collective agreement between the respondent union (SEU) and the employer was void insofar as it granted voluntary recognition for geographic areas where the employer had no facilities or employees.

CLAC argued this constituted unlawful employer support designed to give SEU an organizing advantage.

The Board dismissed the application as premature, holding that it will not decide hypothetical questions or issue declarations regarding future rights where no employees are currently affected.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description except whether it should be restricted to the respondent's Architectural and Window Covering Products Division in Mississauga or apply to the City of Mississauga generally.

The Board applied its policy of defining geographic limitations by municipality to ensure stability of bargaining rights.

The Board rejected the respondent's argument to restrict the unit to a specific division, finding it would be a destabilizing factor.

A certificate was issued to the applicant for all employees in the City of Mississauga, with standard exclusions.

The complainant alleged that the union breached section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by preventing him from being name hired on a pipeline construction project, contrary to the union's by-laws.

The union had agreed with the contractor at a pre-job conference to limit name requests to protect members on the out-of-work list.

The Board found that the union's policy was an established practice aimed at protecting unemployed members and was not applied arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith against the complainant.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant filed a complaint alleging the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under sections 68 and 70 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to process her wrongful dismissal grievance.

The respondent moved to dismiss the complaint due to extreme delay, as it was filed 19 months after the complainant's termination.

The Board found that the delay was extreme and without mitigating circumstances, causing prejudice to the respondent's ability to present a defense.

The Board exercised its discretion to refuse to entertain the complaint and dismissed it.

The applicant employer sought a declaration and a cease and desist direction under section 92 of the Labour Relations Act in respect of an illegal work stoppage at its nuclear generating facilities.

Although the employees had returned to work by the time of the hearing, the Board exercised its discretion to issue the requested relief.

The Board found that the underlying collective bargaining dispute remained unresolved, the union stewards lacked control over the situation, and the strike had significant implications beyond the immediate parties due to the safety and environmental risks associated with nuclear facilities.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of carpenters and carpenters' apprentices.

The respondent employer and intervener union argued that the employees in question were 'form setters' or labourers covered by an existing collective agreement, not carpenters.

The Board examined the work performed by the 25 individuals in dispute and concluded that they were all performing traditional carpenter's work on a substantial and continuous basis.

Consequently, the Board determined that all 25 employees fell within the applicant's proposed bargaining unit.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit consisting solely of employees at the respondent's Dupont Street location.

The respondent employer argued that the appropriate unit should encompass all office and clerical employees in Metropolitan Toronto, which would include both its Dupont and Yonge Street locations.

Applying the Usarco criteria for community of interest, the Board found significant functional coherence and interdependence between the two locations, centralized managerial authority at Yonge Street, and an ongoing computerization project that would further integrate operations and transfer work.

The Board concluded that a separate unit for the Dupont location would result in undue fragmentation and determined that the larger, municipal-wide unit was appropriate.

The applicant union sought to add parent corporations and individual shareholders as respondents to ongoing section 1(4) and 89 proceedings against the employer.

The union alleged that these entities and individuals controlled the employer and sought to add them to ensure recovery of any claims.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the request, holding that section 1(4) is intended to preserve bargaining rights, not to provide a 'deep pocket' for recovery where there has been no transfer of work or erosion of bargaining rights.

The Board also found no exceptional circumstances to affix personal liability under section 89.

The complainant requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision that found the union breached its duty of fair representation.

The complainant sought costs, an order that the Board arbitrate the grievance itself or direct it to arbitration, the right to retain independent counsel at the union's expense, and for the Board to remain seized of the matter.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no extraordinary circumstances to award costs, noting the union membership had already voted to refer the grievance to arbitration, and finding no basis to assume the union would not properly represent the complainant at arbitration.

The complainant alleged that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by arbitrarily deciding not to refer her termination grievance to arbitration.

The union committee had concluded that the grievance lacked merit because the complainant failed to provide adequate medical documentation in a timely manner, and her explanations were inconsistent.

The Board found that the union officials directed their minds to the grievance, considered the collective agreement, and made a decision based on their experience.

The Board held that the union's conduct was not arbitrary, reckless, or grossly negligent, and dismissed the complaint.

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

The union challenged the voluntariness of the decertification petition, alleging employer interference because the applicant had a social relationship with the plant manager.

The Board found no evidence that management promoted the petition or that employees would perceive management involvement.

The Board concluded the petition was a voluntary expression of employee wishes and directed a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, finding the social relationship tainted the petition.

The complainant national union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the respondent employer contravened section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to bargain exclusively with a trustee appointed by the national union.

The local union had voted to disaffiliate and challenged the trusteeship's validity.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding the employer was willing to bargain in good faith but was thwarted by the internal union dispute over bargaining rights, and was not using the dispute as a pretext to avoid its obligations.

The applicant, an individual employee, filed an application for a declaration of an unlawful lockout against the respondent employer, alleging he was locked out after being absent due to a workplace injury.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application without a hearing.

The Board held that under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act, an individual does not have standing to apply for a declaration of an unlawful lockout.

Furthermore, the Board found that the applicant's allegations related to a discharge rather than a lockout as defined in the Act, and thus failed to make out a prima facie case.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer engaged in surface bargaining during negotiations for first collective agreements at six retail stores.

The union argued that the employer's insistence on separate bargaining sessions, its refusal to offer unionized employees better terms than non-unionized employees, and its proposed blanket no-solicitation rule violated the duty to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the employer's bargaining structure and wage proposals constituted hard bargaining rather than surface bargaining.

However, the Board held that the employer's insistence on a blanket no-solicitation rule that prohibited union activity on company premises during non-working hours violated section 15, and directed the employer to amend its proposal.

The applicant union alleged that the respondent company's acquisition of a sublease and certain equipment from a former Safeway store constituted a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent company, which operated ethnically-oriented supermarkets, argued it merely acquired the right to use the premises to expand its own existing business.

The Board found that the respondent did not acquire Safeway's business, but rather purchased idle assets to expand its own successful going concern that catered to a different market.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant trade union alleged that the respondent employer violated the statutory freeze period under section 79(2) and the prohibition against union interference under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by laying off several employees shortly after an application for certification was filed.

The Board found that the layoffs of sales staff and receiving employees were part of a pre-existing program or a continuation of business as usual, and thus did not violate the freeze.

However, the layoffs of cleaning and alterations staff, which resulted from contracting out and centralization decisions made after the freeze began, constituted an unlawful alteration of employee privileges.

The section 64 complaint was dismissed as the layoffs were motivated by bona fide business reasons.