Employment and Labour Law

The complainant and a co-worker were moving a steel beam when it fell from the hoist, narrowly missing the complainant.

An argument ensued between the two workers, and the shop manager directed the complainant to return to work with the co-worker.

The complainant refused, and the employer treated this as a quit or termination.

The complainant filed a complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, alleging he was constructively dismissed for refusing unsafe work.

The Board held that although the complainant did not use specific safety language, his refusal was based on a genuine safety concern following the near-miss.

The Board found the complainant was entitled to a remedy and directed the parties to resolve the issue, remaining seized if they could not agree.

A dissenting member would have found that the complainant quit and authored his own misfortune.

The complainants, employees of The T. Eaton Company Limited, alleged that the respondent union violated the Labour Relations Act by failing to hold a ratification vote before accepting a collective agreement.

The union, facing a prolonged strike and the potential loss of bargaining rights, had its International President ratify the agreement after conducting a back-to-work vote among striking employees only.

The Board found that the union did not act in bad faith or violate its duty of fair representation, as it was not legally obligated to hold a ratification vote and acted to protect its bargaining rights.

The complaints were dismissed.

The applicant employer applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for relief under section 135 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging an unlawful strike.

The dispute arose over the fabrication of pipe support brackets, which the union believed violated the provincial collective agreement.

Union members, acting on instructions from their business manager, refused to install the brackets or hang pipe on them.

The Board found that this concerted refusal to work constituted an unlawful strike during the term of a collective agreement.

The Board issued a cease and desist direction against the union, its business manager, and the involved employees.

The complainant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing his request to be represented by his own counsel at an arbitration hearing, with the costs to be paid by the union.

The Board found no evidence of ill will, bad faith, or discrimination by the union's executive board or membership in their handling of the grievance.

The union had followed its normal procedures and had appointed experienced labour counsel to represent the complainant.

The Board dismissed the complaint, noting that allowing a complainant to unilaterally select counsel at the union's expense would do violence to the legislative scheme establishing the union as the exclusive bargaining agent.

The applicant union brought an application under section 63 and/or section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that a lease with an option to purchase a closed brick and tile manufacturing facility constituted a sale of a business from the former owners to the new operators.

The Board found that no business was sold, as the facility had been closed for years, required significant modifications, and no goodwill or customer lists were transferred.

The section 63 application was dismissed, and consequently, a related termination application was also dismissed.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees applied for certification to represent employees at eight community recreation centres in the City of Toronto.

The Board had to determine whether the City of Toronto or the individual community centres were the true employer, and whether there should be one municipal-wide bargaining unit or eight separate units.

Applying the York Condominium criteria, the Board found that the boards of management had no legal status separate from the City, making the City of Toronto the employer.

Applying the Usarco tests, the Board concluded that the employees at each centre lacked a community of interest with those at other centres, and therefore eight separate bargaining units were appropriate.

One Board member dissented, arguing for a single municipal-wide unit.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board alleging the respondent employer improperly subcontracted concrete forming work.

The respondent and intervening unions requested a preliminary determination under section 150 of the Labour Relations Act as to whether the work fell within the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector.

The Board granted the request, finding it appropriate to determine the sector issue before hearing the merits of the grievance, given the potential illegality of the collective agreement if it purported to cover ICI work.

The union applied for certification to represent part-time employees of a community college.

The college objected, arguing it was a Crown agency and therefore not subject to the Labour Relations Act.

The union argued that if the college was a Crown agency, the exclusion of part-time employees from collective bargaining legislation violated their freedom of association under the Charter.

The Board held that the college is a Crown agency due to the substantial control exercised by the Crown.

The Board further held that it lacked jurisdiction to use the Charter to read down the Interpretations Act or other external statutes to expand its own jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer raised a non-pay allegation regarding one of the membership cards collected by an in-plant organizer.

The Board found that the one dollar payment for the card in question was a bona fide loan from the organizer to the employee, which was subsequently repaid.

Given that the organizer was inexperienced and the union official had conducted proper inquiries, the Board determined this was an isolated incident.

The Board exercised its discretion to count the remaining membership cards collected by the organizer, satisfying the requirement that more than fifty-five per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant.

A formal certificate was issued.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent the respondent's construction employees.

The interveners argued that the application should be barred under section 13 of the Labour Relations Act because the employer had selected the applicant as the bargaining agent and deducted union dues prior to certification, constituting improper employer support.

The Board held that in the construction industry, an employer's selection of a trade union as a source of workers does not violate the employer support provisions.

The Board found no improper support and granted the certification.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement's union security clause by subcontracting excavation work to a non-union equipment rental operator.

The Board found that the arrangement constituted subcontracting and that the employer violated the agreement.

However, the Board declined to award damages because the union failed to adduce evidence that it had unemployed members available to perform the work at the material time.

The Board issued a declaration and a cease and desist order.

The applicant union applied under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act alleging a sale of a business or related employer status between Port Weller Dry Docks and Hamilton Marine.

The respondent and intervener raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked constitutional jurisdiction because Hamilton Marine's business of performing running repairs on ships fell under federal jurisdiction.

The Board found that Hamilton Marine's operations were an essential component of navigation and shipping, and that its business extended beyond the limits of Ontario.

Consequently, the Board held that the labour relations of Hamilton Marine's employees were governed by the Canada Labour Code, not provincial legislation, and terminated the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant employer requested the Board to determine whether a newly created 'Dental Assistant Supervisor' position is an 'employee' under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent union argued the matter should be deferred to arbitration.

The Board noted its exclusive jurisdiction to determine employee status under the Act, which may resolve the issue without arbitration.

The Board appointed an Officer to inquire into the duties and responsibilities of the new position.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of drivers and warehousemen at the respondent's Hamilton location, and requested the inclusion of employees at the Oakville and St. Catharines branches, as well as two order desk dispatchers at Hamilton.

The respondent argued for separate bargaining units for each location and claimed the dispatchers were managerial.

The Board held that the geographical scope should include all three locations due to a strong community of interest and the viability of a larger unit.

The Board also found that the two dispatchers did not exercise effective control over the drivers' employment relationship and were therefore employees, not managers.

A formal certificate was issued for the combined unit.

One Board member dissented.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The parties agreed on the general description of the bargaining unit but disputed the inclusion of four individuals whom the respondent claimed exercised managerial functions.

The applicant requested the Board to receive evidence directly to expedite the matter, citing a recent decision.

The Board declined to depart from its normal practice and appointed a Board Officer to inquire into the disputed individuals' duties.

As the applicant's right to certification was not affected by the ultimate composition of the unit, the Board granted interim certification pending final resolution.

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union applied for certification for employees at various Swiss Chalet restaurants.

The respondents and interveners argued the applications were untimely due to an existing collective agreement between the Swiss Chalet Employers' Association (SCEA) and the Canadian Union of Restaurant and Related Employees (CURRE).

Local 88 intervened, claiming to be the successor to CURRE following a merger.

The Board found that the attempted merger between CURRE and Local 88 was legally ineffective due to non-compliance with CURRE's constitutional notice requirements.

The Board also determined that the SCEA was a valid employers' organization and its agreement with CURRE was a collective agreement.

However, franchisee respondents who applied for SCEA membership after its formation were not automatically bound by the agreement.

The Board further held that the franchising of locations by Foodcorp constituted a sale of a business under section 63 of the Act.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent occasional teachers in the respondent's elementary panel and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The respondent argued the application was an abuse of process due to a recently dismissed identical application and disputed the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board declined to resolve the abuse of process and bargaining unit disputes at this stage, noting that a pre-hearing vote is designed to test representation quickly based on an appearance of support.

The Board directed a pre-hearing representation vote by mailed ballot, with the ballots to be segregated and the ballot box sealed pending resolution of the disputed issues.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

A preliminary issue arose regarding whether certain workers supplied to the respondent by a temporary help agency (Manpower Services) were employees of the respondent or of the agency for the purposes of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that while the agency handled payroll and administrative functions, the respondent exercised fundamental day-to-day control over the workers' working lives, including assigning work, supervising, and determining hours.

The Board concluded that the respondent was the true employer and directed the matter to be re-listed to resolve outstanding certification issues.

One Board member dissented, finding the workers were employees of the agency.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union violated section 69 of the Labour Relations Act regarding hiring hall referrals and denial of information.

The respondent raised preliminary objections, arguing the complainant was improperly expanding the scope of the original complaint.

The Board ruled that it would hear evidence on the alleged denial of information and the complainant's qualifications as a cement finisher, but dismissed challenges to referrals that did not affect the complainant's statutory rights.

Consideration of certain other referrals was deferred.

The complainant filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the union but failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint due to the lack of evidence.

The intervener requested costs against the complainant for failing to attend.

The Board declined to award costs, reaffirming its general policy against awarding costs in order to avoid introducing a punitive element into its procedures, while noting it has other mechanisms to prevent abuse of process.