Employment and Labour Law

The complainant union alleged that the respondent purchaser of a tavern business committed an unfair labour practice by refusing to employ former employees because of their union membership.

The respondent declared bankruptcy and did not attend the hearing.

The Board found that because the sale occurred after the collective agreement expired, the respondent was not bound to continue the employment of the predecessor's employees.

Since the grievors did not formally apply for employment until months later, and there was no evidence of available positions or compensable loss at that time, the Board dismissed the complaint.

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the College violated the College's Collective Bargaining Act by cancelling extension courses taught by full-time faculty during a legal strike, and by refusing to allow a specific faculty member to teach in the subsequent semester due to his union activities.

The Board found that the College's decisions to replace or cancel the suspended courses were made for bona fide operational reasons to minimize disruption, and were not tainted by anti-union animus.

The Board also concluded that the refusal to hire the specific faculty member was based on his unprofessional conduct and low course enrolment, rather than his union involvement.

The complaints were dismissed.

The applicant union referred three grievances to arbitration, alleging the respondent Board of Education violated the subcontracting clause of the provincial collective agreement by contracting masonry work to non-union employers.

The respondent argued it was merely a purchaser of construction, not an employer operating a business in the construction industry.

The Board found that the respondent exercised sufficient control over the job site and the selection of contractors to be considered engaged in a business in the construction industry.

The grievances were allowed and the applicant was entitled to compensation.

The applicant union requested the Board to reconsider its decision dismissing an application for certification following a representation vote.

The union alleged employer misconduct based on a letter distributed prior to the vote, but failed to file its objection within the prescribed time limits despite having knowledge of the letter before the deadline.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, emphasizing the need for expedition and certainty in its procedures, and finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the untimely objection.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent the employees of the respondent trucking company.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing its operations extended beyond Ontario and fell under federal jurisdiction.

The Board found that the respondent, an unlicensed carrier hauling exclusively for a single manufacturer using leased trucks bearing the manufacturer's name, was not an independent inter-provincial trucking operation but an integrated delivery arm of the manufacturing concern.

Consequently, the operations fell within provincial jurisdiction.

Finding that the union had the requisite membership support, the Board issued a certificate.

In consolidated complaints and an application for consent to prosecute, the corporate respondents raised a preliminary issue challenging the validity of a 1973 accreditation decision and certificate, arguing it was a nullity due to jurisdictional errors.

The Board declined to permit the challenge, holding that a certificate of accreditation conclusively establishes bargaining rights until revoked or quashed, and that one panel of the Board should not act as an appellate body over another.

In a separate evidentiary ruling, the Board held that evidence of conversations with a mediator in the presence of both parties is admissible, but evidence of what a mediator said to one party in private is inadmissible to protect the confidentiality of the mediation process.

The applicant union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer and a group of objecting employees challenged the application.

A petition opposing certification and a counter-petition reaffirming support for the union were filed.

The Board held a hearing to determine the voluntariness of the counter-petition.

After reviewing the evidence regarding its origination, preparation, and circulation, the Board found that the counter-petition was signed voluntarily, free from threats, intimidation, or undue influence.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to schedule further hearings on outstanding issues.

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

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

The Board determined the voting constituency based on the applicant's proposed unit.

Despite the applicant filing a blank Form 9 declaration, the Board found sufficient appearance of membership support to direct a pre-hearing vote.

The Board ordered the ballot box sealed pending resolution of the Form 9 issue and other disputes.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The parties partially agreed on the bargaining unit description but disputed the inclusion of certain positions.

The applicant filed membership evidence and a Form 9 declaration that disclosed minor discrepancies in the collection of membership fees and signatures.

The respondent employer sought to inspect the membership evidence or, alternatively, requested a hearing to cross-examine the union on the discrepancies.

The Board denied the employer's requests, affirming its long-standing practice and statutory mandate under section 111(1) of the Labour Relations Act to maintain the secrecy of union membership records.

The Board found the discrepancies noted in the Form 9 did not cast doubt on the reliability of the membership evidence.

As the union demonstrated support well in excess of the required 55 per cent, the Board issued an interim certificate pending the final resolution of the bargaining unit composition.

The applicant, the sole employee in the bargaining unit, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union argued that the Board could not entertain the application because there must be more than one employee in the unit.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that in the construction industry, a single employee can apply to terminate bargaining rights.

The Board also found the applicant's statement of desire to be voluntary and directed a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, arguing that the statute requires a plurality of employees for a termination application.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the respondent hospital and the Ontario Hospital Association, alleging breaches of the duty to bargain in good faith and interference with statutory rights regarding the discontinuance of extended tours.

The respondents raised several preliminary objections, including that the complaint failed to disclose a prima facie case, that the Board should defer to arbitration, that the complaint lacked particularity, and that it was untimely.

The Board dismissed all preliminary objections, finding that the complaint raised complex issues of law and policy that required a full hearing on the merits, and that the issues transcended the collective agreement such that deferral to arbitration was inappropriate.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent occasional teachers employed by the respondent school board and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The parties disagreed on the appropriate bargaining unit description, specifically regarding the inclusion of unqualified occasional teachers and part-time permanent teachers who also teach occasionally.

The Board directed a pre-hearing representation vote using the applicant's proposed voting constituency, ordering that ballots cast by persons alleged to be party to a permanent or probationary teaching contract be segregated and the ballot box sealed pending further determination of the appropriate bargaining unit.

The union and an individual employee filed complaints alleging that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act by penalizing employees for their union organizing activities.

The employer laid off one key union organizer, reduced overtime for another, and terminated a third who had also refused to work on a machine that had previously caused him health issues.

The Board found that the employer's actions were motivated by anti-union animus and that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving otherwise.

The Board concluded that the employer contravened sections 64 and 66 of the Labour Relations Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's wholesale division.

The parties disagreed on whether salesmen, fillers, part-time employees, and students should be included in the unit.

The Board found that the salesmen and fillers shared a community of interest with the warehouse and delivery employees, departing from its usual policy due to the specific operational integration.

The Board excluded students based on the employer's history of hiring them, but included part-time employees as there was no such history.

As the union demonstrated less than forty-five percent membership support in the determined unit, the application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant sought accreditation as the bargaining agent for employers in the sewers and watermains sector.

The respondent and interveners challenged the applicant's status, arguing it was not a properly constituted employers' organization under the Labour Relations Act due to alleged defects in its by-laws and their enactment.

The Board found that the applicant was an employers' organization within the meaning of the Act and that its by-laws were properly enacted.

The Board held that imposing additional pre-conditions for accreditation based on internal by-law provisions would exceed its jurisdiction, and concluded the applicant was a properly constituted organization.

In an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights, a representation vote resulted in a tie.

One employee requested that the vote be set aside, claiming she had misread the ballot and mistakenly voted in favour of the union when she intended to vote against it.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the request, holding that it would not inquire into the subjective intent of a voter or look behind an unambiguously marked ballot, as doing so would undermine the secrecy and integrity of the voting process.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application as untimely, arguing that the initial application form failed to describe the bargaining unit and was only corrected after the open period had expired.

The Board dismissed the union's motion, finding that the application, when read with its accompanying documents, clearly intended to cover all employees for whom the union held bargaining rights.

The Board emphasized substance over form, noting that the application was filed in a timely manner and the defect in form did not invalidate it.

The Board extended the terminal date to allow for proper notice to be served regarding both the full-time and part-time bargaining units.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of surveyors in the construction industry.

The respondent employer and intervener union raised preliminary motions arguing the unit was inappropriate because the applicant already held bargaining rights for other employees under the provincial agreement, and because the agreement lacked a wage schedule for surveyors outside Sarnia.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the motions, finding that the provincial agreement and ministerial designation covered surveyors, and that section 144(1) of the Labour Relations Act permits an affiliated bargaining agent to apply for certification for unrepresented employees who would be bound by the provincial agreement.

The complainant alleged that an individual held both a managerial function and a union position, resulting in a breach of the duty of fair representation and a violation of the Labour Relations Act.

The complainant sought relief that would effectively bar the individual from the bargaining unit.

The Board raised concerns that the individual had not been named as a party.

The complainant requested an adjournment to add the individual as a party, which the respondents opposed due to previous delays.

The Board granted the adjournment, finding that it would be a denial of fundamental justice to proceed without giving the affected individual notice and party status.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated the statutory freeze provision of the Labour Relations Act by failing to pay a minimum wage increase and a Christmas bonus to part-time employees following the union's certification.

The employer argued that the expiration of the previous collective agreement and the termination of the incumbent union's bargaining rights meant the payments were not caught by the freeze.

The Board held that the terms and conditions of employment, including the bonus and wage increase, were frozen as of the date of the certification application and continued throughout the freeze period.

The Board directed the employer to make the payments.