Employment and Labour Law

The applicant employer sought relief under section 92 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent union and its officials called or encouraged an unlawful strike.

The dispute arose after the employer unilaterally introduced a new 'super-classification' that had been rejected during collective bargaining.

In protest, the union organized five-minute work stoppages.

The Board found that the work stoppages constituted an unlawful strike and that the union officials had encouraged them.

The Board rejected the union's argument that the employer's conduct justified withholding relief, noting that the parties had access to grievance and arbitration procedures.

The Board issued declarations and cease and desist directions against the union and its officials.

During a hearing for a construction industry grievance referred under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, a dispute arose regarding the scope of a summons to witness issued at the applicant's request.

The applicant sought the production of documents relating to job sites not mentioned in the grievance and for periods extending beyond the grievance date.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that the summons must be restricted to documents relating only to the two job sites specifically named in the grievance, and limited the relevant timeframe to the period between March 19, 1984, and the first day of the hearing.

The applicant union requested leave to withdraw its application for certification before a pre-hearing representation vote was directed.

The respondent hospital opposed the withdrawal and requested that the Board impose a bar on future applications under section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act, arguing the union was attempting to avoid an unfavourable vote.

The Board dismissed the application but declined to impose a bar or issue a warning, noting that a vote had not yet been directed and it would be inappropriate to adjudicate the likelihood of a vote merely to determine the burden of proof for a hypothetical future application.

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

The parties disputed whether two workers were employees or independent contractors on the date of the application.

Applying the fourfold test, the Board found that the workers were employees paid on a piecework basis, as they did not have a chance of profit or risk of loss typical of independent contractors.

As the union had the requisite membership support, the Board issued certificates for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector and for all other sectors in the appropriate geographic area.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent employer violated the collective agreement by reclassifying an employee to a lower wage category.

The respondent raised preliminary objections, arguing that the matter was res judicata as two prior Board decisions had already interpreted the identical collective agreement provision to apply only to lay-offs, not reclassifications.

The Board agreed, finding that the prior decisions were binding and that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case.

The grievance was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Although the union had sufficient membership support for automatic certification, a group of employees filed a petition in opposition, and some employees subsequently filed revocations of their signatures on the petition.

The Board held an inquiry to determine whether the revocations were signed after the petition and represented the voluntary wishes of the employees.

Finding that the viva voce evidence failed to establish the sequence of signing, the Board directed a continuation of the hearing to inquire into the voluntariness of the original petition.

One Board member dissented, arguing the revocations should be accepted regardless of sequence.

The complainants alleged that the respondent union and its business manager contravened section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by acting arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith in the administration of the union's hiring hall.

The Board found that the union's hiring hall records were unreliable and that the business manager had used his control over the hiring hall to penalize political rivals by denying them job opportunities.

The Board concluded that the union contravened section 69 in respect of 23 referrals challenged by one complainant and 3 referrals challenged by the other, and ordered the union to compensate them for lost wages and benefits.

The Board declined to award costs.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of construction labourers in the ICI sector and all other sectors, as well as carpenters and carpenters' apprentices in all other sectors.

The Board found that the applicant was not designated to represent carpenters in the ICI sector, and since the carpenters were employed in the ICI sector on the date of application, a unit of carpenters was not appropriate under either section 144(1) or 144(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board granted certification for the construction labourers in the ICI sector provincially and in all other sectors in the specified geographic area, and dismissed the application regarding carpenters.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer bargained in bad faith during negotiations following a lengthy and unsuccessful strike.

The union argued that the employer's proposals, which included a less generous monetary offer than before the strike and a demand that the union withdraw pending unfair labour practice complaints, were illegal and designed to avoid a collective agreement.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer was engaging in hard bargaining based on its superior bargaining power.

While the Board noted that an employer cannot use its bargaining power to compel the withdrawal of statutory complaints, it found that the union had not unequivocally refused to negotiate the issue or demanded its removal from the table, but had instead offered its own compromises.

During a lengthy hearing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the employer representative on the panel became too ill to continue.

The parties could not agree on whether to substitute the incapacitated member or how to proceed.

The Board held that, unlike other statutes, the Labour Relations Act does not contain a provision allowing the Board to replace a panel member who is unable to complete their duties due to illness.

Absent the consent of all parties, the Board lacked jurisdiction to substitute the member or continue with the remaining two members.

Consequently, the Board directed that the complaint be heard de novo before a new panel.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer discharged an employee contrary to the Labour Relations Act due to his union organizing activities.

The employee had a history of absenteeism and alcoholism but was discharged shortly after engaging in union campaigning and making a pro-union speech in the company cafeteria.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the reverse onus under section 89(5) of the Act, requiring the employer to prove that the discharge was not tainted by anti-union animus.

The Board found the employer's explanation for delaying the discharge to consult with other managers unpersuasive and concluded the employer failed to discharge its burden of proof.

The Board ordered compensation but declined to order reinstatement as the employee had already accepted other employment prior to his discharge.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the complaint, finding ample just cause for the discharge independent of any union activity.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement by employing a non-union member as an oiler without first calling the union's hiring hall.

The Board denied the respondent's request for an adjournment pending a judicial review application.

On the merits, the Board found the respondent breached the union security clause, ordered compensation for lost wages and benefits to be paid in trust, and issued a cease-and-desist order.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a craft bargaining unit of stage employees at the respondent's scenery construction shop.

The parties disagreed on the scope and geographic description of the unit.

The Board determined that, given the lack of integration and community of interest between the respondent's different locations, the unit should be restricted to the specific municipal address of the shop.

Furthermore, to accommodate potential future hiring of other craft members, the Board defined the unit broadly as 'all stage employees' at that location rather than listing specific classifications.

A certificate was issued as the applicant demonstrated over 55% membership support.

In an application for certification, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined the eligibility of three individuals to vote in a representation vote for an office employees bargaining unit.

The Board ruled that Chantelle MacAllister's ballot would be counted because the applicant abandoned its challenge.

Lisette Larocque's ballot would be counted because the respondent could not unilaterally withdraw from an earlier agreement that she was an employee in the unit.

Jean Lamoureux's ballot would not be counted because the respondent had previously agreed he was in a different, mutually exclusive bargaining unit on the eligibility date.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the improper discharge of an employee during an organizing campaign.

The employer claimed the employee was laid off due to a shortage of work and lack of qualifications.

The Board found that the employer's actions, including the discharge, involvement in an anti-union petition, and holding a captive audience meeting, violated sections 64, 66, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

Concluding that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained in a representation vote due to the chilling effect of the employer's conduct, the Board certified the union pursuant to section 8 of the Act and ordered the reinstatement of the discharged employee with compensation.

The applicant union applied for certification for two bargaining units (full-time and part-time) at the respondent's workplace.

The respondent argued that a representation vote should be ordered because it planned to double its workforce in the coming months.

The Board found that the current employees in both units constituted at least fifty percent of the anticipated workforce and were therefore sufficiently representative.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and issued certificates to the applicant for both bargaining units.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board, alleging the respondent employer violated a provincial collective agreement.

The respondent raised preliminary objections, arguing it was not bound by any collective agreement, or alternatively, that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights or was estopped from enforcing them.

The Board found that the respondent's president had signed a document intending to bind his company to the union, which constituted a valid voluntary recognition agreement binding the respondent to the provincial agreement.

The Board further held that the union had not abandoned its bargaining rights and was not estopped from enforcing the agreement, as it had acted diligently upon learning of potential violations.

The Board directed the parties to seek a settlement on liability and damages.

The respondents requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision that found their blanket prohibition on the distribution of union literature on store premises to be an unfair labour practice.

The Board declined to reconsider the merits of the case, reaffirming that its reconsideration power is not a forum for re-arguing decided issues.

However, the Board modified the required Notice to Employees to better reflect the employer's stated policy on casual conversation, while finding that the employer's previous letters prohibiting all solicitation violated section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether collective bargaining relationships existed between six Atikokan employers and Local 75, and whether an April 22, 1983 collective agreement was binding on them.

The Board found that Local 75 held bargaining rights for all employers except The Little Falls Dining Room (for which the union withdrew its claim).

However, the Board concluded that the April 1983 agreement was only binding on the three employers who actually executed it (John The Sportsman Restaurant, Rockton Hotel, and Atikokan Hotel), and not on the Valenca Restaurant or the Steep Rock Inn, as they had not signed it and were not bound by the actions of the informal employers' association.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated the statutory freeze period and interfered with the union's administration by unilaterally reducing employee hours and dealing directly with employees.

The employer, a newly acquired nursing home, implemented staffing changes resulting in reduced hours for several employees without the union's consent.

The Board found that the collective agreement did not give the employer the right to unilaterally establish new normal hours of work.

The Board held that the employer violated the statutory freeze and interfered with the union by bypassing it to deal directly with employees.

The employer was ordered to compensate affected employees.