Employment and Labour Law

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of construction labourers.

The employer disputed the inclusion of two employees.

The Board found that one employee, who primarily operated heavy equipment, belonged in an operating engineers' unit and was excluded.

The Board found that the second employee, a foreman, did not exercise managerial functions within the meaning of section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act and was properly included in the bargaining unit.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the college violated the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act by assigning make-up work to academic staff without mutual consent or additional remuneration following a legislated end to a strike.

The college brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board found that the college was not required to consult the union before assigning the work, as the assignments did not exceed the maximum teaching hours under the collective agreement and were consistent with the back-to-work legislation.

The Board concluded that the allegations could not reasonably or arguably establish a breach of the Act and dismissed the complaint without a hearing.

The applicant union, CUPE, applied for a declaration under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act that it had acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of the predecessor union, the Bethesda Service Employees Association, following a merger vote.

The employer took a neutral position, but a group of employees objected, suggesting some employees had second thoughts after the vote.

The Board found that the merger vote was well-attended and properly conducted, and that the employees' concerns did not warrant refusing the declaration or directing a new representation vote.

The Board granted the declaration of successor rights.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union regarding a 1974 discharge grievance that the union dropped in 1978.

The union and the employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the timeliness of the complaint, which was filed in 1985.

The Board found that the extreme delay of at least seven years since the cause of action crystallized caused substantial prejudice to the respondents due to fading memories, lost documentation, and the death of a key witness.

The Board declined to inquire into the merits and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant union applied for certification.

During the hearing, it was revealed that the union's business agent had signed the receipt portion of two membership cards despite not being the actual collector of the initiation fees, and subsequently signed a Form 9 Declaration without noting any exceptions.

The Board found that the union representative had knowingly made a false representation to the Board.

Given the strict standards for membership evidence and the necessity of complete disclosure on Form 9, the Board declined to give any weight to the membership evidence and dismissed the application.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer argued that an existing collective agreement with the Center Tool Employees Organization barred the application, or alternatively, that a representation vote should be held.

The Board found that the Center Tool Employees Organization lacked a formal constitution, membership requirements, and mutual obligations among employees, and therefore was not a 'trade union' within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act.

As the applicant had the support of approximately two-thirds of the bargaining unit, the Board granted certification without directing a representation vote.

The complainant union alleged that the respondents committed unfair labour practices by repudiating the collective agreement, reducing wages, and terminating a union steward who threatened to complain to the Labour Board.

The respondents failed to appear at the hearing.

The Board found that the operators engaged in a massive repudiation of the union and the employees' rights under the collective agreement, violating sections 64 and 66 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the successor employer, Last Resort Hotel Inc., to pay unpaid wages and vacation pay to the affected employees, and remained seized of the matter regarding the potential personal liability of the individual respondent.

The applicant union brought an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging a sale of a business occurred when the respondent corporation purchased all the shares of the employer.

The Board found that the transfer of shares left the corporate employer intact and did not constitute a sale of a business within the meaning of the Act.

The application was dismissed, with the Board noting that the union's bargaining rights and collective agreement with the original employer remained in effect.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.

An employees' association sought to intervene but failed to provide written evidence that employees had applied for membership, leading the Board to deny it status.

The respondent employer argued the application should be barred because the applicant had recently withdrawn a similar application.

The Board declined to impose a time bar, finding no evidence that the withdrawal was an attempt to avoid a representation vote defeat.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit and referred the matter to a Board Officer to inquire into the list and composition of the unit.

The applicants sought relief under sections 1(4) and 63 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that Hespeler Concrete Floors Ltd. and Puslinch Concrete Floors Limited were related employers or that a sale of business had occurred.

The respondents did not appear at the hearing and their principals evaded service of subpoenas.

The Board found that the two companies were carrying on associated or related activities under common control or direction, noting common management, interrelationship of operations, representation to the public as a single enterprise, and centralized control of labour relations.

The Board granted a declaration under section 1(4) binding Puslinch to the provincial collective agreement, but dismissed the section 63 application as there was no evidence of a sale of business.

The applicant union applied for certification and sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The union requested a bargaining unit description covering two municipalities, departing from the Board's general policy of municipal-wide units.

The Board found the union's asserted facts raised a serious issue regarding regular and significant interchange and community of interest.

The Board appointed a Board Officer to inquire into the community of interest among employees at various locations and the history of part-time employees.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.

On the terminal date, the respondent employer filed a list of eight employees.

Later, during the Labour Relations Officer's inquiry, the employer sought to add five additional names to the list, claiming that relevant documents had just been located.

The Board denied the request, finding that the employer had the documents in its possession at all material times and made no reservations when filing the original list.

Allowing the late amendment would render the terminal date requirements meaningless.

The Board proceeded to certify the applicant.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The respondent employers and the union agreed to a related employer declaration.

A group of employees filed a statement of desire after the terminal date, requesting an extension because the employer's bookkeeper had mistakenly altered the terminal date on the posted Board notice.

The Board refused to extend the terminal date, finding that the employees had adequate notice of the original date before the unauthorized alteration was made.

As the union had membership support from more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit on the terminal date, the Board granted certification.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of sheet metal workers employed by the respondent in the construction industry.

The Board found that because sheet metal work is a compulsorily certified trade under the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification Act, the appropriate bargaining unit must be restricted to journeymen sheet metal workers and registered sheet metal apprentices.

The Board excluded several employees who did not hold the required qualifications and granted the certification certificates based on the union's membership support.

The applicant union sought certification.

A group of employees filed a petition in opposition, which would have reduced the union's support below the 55% required for automatic certification.

The Board found that a foreman was directly involved in soliciting a signature for the petition, rendering it involuntary.

The employer and an objecting employee requested a representation vote due to the passage of time and alleged changes in the workforce.

The Board declined to order a vote, emphasizing the need for a fixed terminal date to assess membership support.

The application for certification was granted.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of retail store employees.

The parties disputed whether the bargaining unit description should be municipal-wide or restricted to a specific street location.

The Board followed its general practice in the retail industry, determining that where there is only a single retail store at the time of the application, certification should be on a municipal-wide basis.

The Board certified the applicant as the bargaining agent for all employees at the respondent's retail store(s) in Peterborough.

The applicant unions sought relief under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent breweries were engaging in an unlawful lock-out.

The dispute arose during industry bargaining when the employers insisted on a ratification clause requiring acceptance by all bargaining units before any collective agreement would take effect.

After two bargaining units rejected the memorandum of agreement, the employers maintained the lock-out for all units, including those that had ratified.

The Board dismissed the applications, finding that the unions had voluntarily agreed to the ratification clause in the memorandum of settlement and that the employers were not legally required to offer individual agreements without the clause once the risk of the multi-unit ratification failed.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated the Labour Relations Act by issuing mass termination notices to bargaining unit employees shortly after the union was certified.

The union argued the terminations were motivated by anti-union animus and violated the statutory freeze period under section 79.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the section 66 complaints, finding the terminations were driven by legitimate economic justifications and a pre-existing modernization plan, not anti-union animus.

Regarding the statutory freeze, the Board applied a 'reasonable expectations' test and held that the mass layoffs in the processing function did not violate section 79, as employees could reasonably expect layoffs during a severe economic downturn.

However, the Board found that contracting out the drapery workroom functions violated the freeze period, as it introduced a new method of operation outside the employees' reasonable expectations.

The complainant, a plumber, alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under sections 68 and 69 of the Labour Relations Act by giving priority for pipeline helper work to members classified as pipeline helpers, and by the Executive Board's refusal to duly consider his concerns.

The Board found that the union's business manager acted in good faith and in accordance with established union practices when he decided to refer members classified as pipeline helpers before offering such work to other classifications.

The Board also found no breach in the Executive Board's handling of the complainant's concerns.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the respondent employers violated section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by permitting an incumbent union to post disparaging notices on company bulletin boards during an organizing campaign.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the complaints for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board granted the motion, finding that the posting of notices was permitted under the collective agreements and section 46(1)(c) of the Act, and therefore could not constitute a violation of section 64.