Employment and Labour Law

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a unit of maintenance employees who were already part of a larger plant-wide bargaining unit represented by the intervener trade union.

The applicant sought to carve out these employees under section 6(1) of the Labour Relations Act, arguing they had not been adequately represented by the intervener.

The Board held that this reason alone was insufficient to depart from its established policy requiring a displacement applicant to take all employees in the existing bargaining unit.

Finding the proposed unit inappropriate for collective bargaining, the Board dismissed the application and directed the destruction of the ballots cast in the pre-hearing representation vote.

The union applied for certification and filed membership evidence for 56% of the bargaining unit, which would normally entitle it to certification without a vote.

However, a group of employees filed a timely statement of opposition (petition) containing signatures of employees who had previously signed union cards.

The Board scrutinized the voluntariness of the petition, particularly because one of the main proponents was the brother of a former district manager.

The Board found that while this proponent's indiscretions invalidated the signatures he collected, the signatures collected by another employee were voluntary.

As a result, the union's unqualified support fell below 55%, and the Board directed a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, finding the petition entirely involuntary.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the respondents, a livestock feed distributor and two vehicle leasing/driver supply companies, constituted a single employer.

The union argued that the feed distributor's decision to contract out its transportation needs to the other respondents, who hired many of the previous drivers, created a related employer situation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that while the entities might be under common control or direction, there were no compelling labour relations reasons to exercise its discretion to make the declaration.

The Board noted the feed distributor had no financial interest in the other companies and did not exercise sufficient control over their labour relations.

The union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board contesting the grievor's discharge and denial of subsistence allowance.

The grievor had submitted rent receipts, purportedly signed by his father, to claim a room and board allowance from Ontario Hydro.

An investigation revealed the receipts were signed by the grievor's brother and the grievor did not actually pay rent for a self-contained domestic establishment.

The Board found the grievor was not entitled to the allowance and that his fraudulent conduct justified his discharge.

The grievance was dismissed, though the Board declined to order restitution of the $11,196 already paid, citing a lack of jurisdiction.

The union was certified as the bargaining agent for employees of the respondent in October 1984.

In September 1985, the union wrote to the Board stating it no longer enjoyed the support of the employees and sought a declaration terminating its bargaining rights.

The Board treated the letter as a request for reconsideration and revocation of the certificate.

Before deciding, the Board directed the employer to post the decision and invited representations from the employer and affected employees by October 30, 1985, indicating that if no opposition is received, the Board may grant the union's request without a hearing.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification to replace the incumbent union.

The timeliness of the application depended on whether the Inflation Restraint Act had extended the previous collective agreement or whether a subsequent document signed by the employer and incumbent union constituted a new collective agreement.

The Board found that the subsequent document was a separate collective agreement that expired on December 31, 1983, making the application timely.

The Board also declined to order a new representation vote despite the passage of time, directing that the ballots from the pre-hearing vote be counted.

The applicant union, Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation (OSSTF), applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of clerical and secretarial support staff employed by the respondent board of education.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that OSSTF's constitution did not permit it to accept such employees into membership.

The Board reviewed the union's constitution and by-laws, which were framed exclusively around the teaching profession and professional educators.

The Board concluded that the phrase 'employed in an educational capacity' in the constitution could not be stretched to include clerical support staff.

As the union had no established practice of admitting non-teachers into membership, the Board found the employees were not eligible for membership in OSSTF.

The applicant union applied for certification with respect to employees performing janitorial services at the Cleary Auditorium, naming Ambassador Building Maintenance Limited as the respondent employer.

The respondent argued it merely provided a payroll service and was not the true employer.

The Board found that although a contract existed between the respondent and the auditorium, the auditorium actually hired, supervised, and set the working conditions for the employees.

Applying the "true employer" test, the Board concluded that the auditorium, not the respondent, was the true employer.

The application for certification against the respondent was dismissed.

The applicant union sought certification for employees at the respondent's service centre.

The parties disputed whether Parts Clerical, Delivery Clerical, Receiving Clerical, and Service Clerical employees should be included in the bargaining unit.

The Board found that these employees performed functions similar to the Merchandise Control Office and Customer Convenience Centre, and lacked a community of interest with the production employees.

The Board excluded them from the bargaining unit as office and clerical staff and issued a final certificate.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer failed to bargain in good faith by reneging on an offer regarding the length of the Christmas shutdown.

The employer had proposed a two-year renewal with 'no change', which both parties understood to mean an eight-day paid Christmas shutdown.

After the union membership voted to accept the offer, the employer attempted to schedule a five-day shutdown, claiming it had not agreed to specific dates.

The Board found that while the employer acted without ill intent, it violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by purporting to modify its offer after permitting the union to accept it.

The Board directed the employer to enter into a collective agreement reflecting the eight-day shutdown and to provide affected employees with three additional paid days off.

During an ongoing hearing regarding a complaint that the respondent trade union violated section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, the complainant requested that the Board reconsider its ruling excluding a letter written by a third party.

The complainant sought to introduce the letter as evidence of the truth of its contents without calling the author as a witness.

The Board declined to reconsider its ruling, holding that fairness to the respondent required that testimony on a central and controversial issue be received directly, under oath, and subject to cross-examination.

The complainant, a millwright discharged after an altercation with management, alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation by refusing to take his discharge grievance to arbitration.

The union had negotiated a full total disability pension for the complainant, believing his grievance had little chance of success given the evidence against him and his prior disciplinary record.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union had fairly considered the merits of the grievance and acted in the complainant's best interest without arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.

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

The Board found that the applicant had the requisite membership support and directed that a pre-hearing vote be taken.

The intervener requested that the ballot box be sealed based on allegations that the applicant's organizers told employees they would have to join later and pay $25.00 if they did not sign a card.

The Board declined to seal the ballot box, finding that the allegations, even if established, would not affect the applicant's entitlement to the pre-hearing vote.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer requested an adjournment to locate a 1968 collective agreement, arguing it might show the union abandoned its bargaining rights due to unfavourable terms.

The Board denied the adjournment, noting the union stipulated the terms were unfavourable and the agreement would otherwise bar the application unless rights were abandoned.

Based on uncontradicted evidence that the union had not negotiated, grieved, collected dues, or contacted employees for over twelve years, the Board found the union had abandoned its prior bargaining rights.

The Board granted the certification application.

The union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board concerning the interpretation of the travel allowance provision in the provincial collective agreement.

The employer argued that an employee's 'base city' for calculating travel allowance was the location where they reported for work, thereby denying travel allowance to workers dispatched from Kingston to a job site in Belleville.

The Board rejected this interpretation, finding that 'base city' refers to the employee's home base or ordinary place of residence.

The Board held that employees dispatched from Kingston to Belleville were entitled to mileage allowance calculated from their base city.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A high percentage of employees signed union cards, but a similarly high percentage subsequently signed a petition opposing certification.

The Board heard evidence regarding the circumstances of the petition's circulation to determine if it represented a voluntary change of mind.

Despite some management inquiries, the Board found the change of mind was spontaneous and not initiated by management.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 7(2) of the Act to order a representation vote.

The applicant, a full-time employee, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights for both full-time and part-time bargaining units.

The union argued the applicant lacked standing for the part-time unit and exercised managerial functions.

The Board held that employees in both units who signed the petition were considered applicants, giving standing for both units.

The Board also found the applicant was an assistant manager who did not exercise managerial functions.

Finding the petition voluntary, the Board directed a representation vote for both bargaining units.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the statutory freeze by eliminating part-time switchboard positions and violated the reprisal provisions by discharging an employee who attended an arbitration hearing.

The Board found that the employer violated the section 79 statutory freeze by unilaterally transferring work out of the bargaining unit without an established prior pattern.

However, the Board dismissed the section 80 reprisal complaint, finding the employee was discharged for her disruptive outburst during the arbitration hearing and her poor employment record, rather than for her mere attendance as an observer.

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

The intervener claimed to be the successor to the incumbent trade union and requested to be on the ballot.

The applicant disputed the successorship, alleging an invalid merger, employer support, and intimidation.

The Board held that the successorship issue must be resolved before a pre-hearing vote could be conducted.

The Board directed that the intervener's claim be treated as an application for a successor status declaration and scheduled a hearing to determine both the successorship issue and whether a pre-hearing vote should be directed in light of the applicant's allegations.

The intervener union sought to set aside a pre-hearing representation vote, arguing that a letter circulated by the respondent employer and subsequently used in the applicant union's campaign propaganda improperly affected the employees' ability to freely choose their representative.

The Board dismissed the objection, finding that the propaganda did not overpower the critical faculties of the employee voters.

The Board certified the applicant union, as it received more than fifty-five percent of the ballots cast.