Employment and Labour Law

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

The union argued that the petition was not voluntary due to the employer's conduct during a recent lock-out, the hiring of replacement workers, and the payment of a larger Christmas bonus to the applicant.

The Board found that the employer's actions did not taint the petition, as they were not directly related to its origination or circulation, and the petition was circulated eight months after the lock-out ended.

The Board concluded the petition was voluntary and directed a representation vote.

The applicant union and respondent hospital reached a settlement regarding the status of disputed employees in an application for certification, leading the Board to grant final certification.

However, objecting employees subsequently informed the Board that they did not sign the settlement because they disagreed with it, not because they declined to participate.

The Board reconsidered its decision, revoked the final certification, granted interim certification, and reappointed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the disputed individuals.

In a complex proceeding involving nearly two hundred parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued procedural directions regarding the service of documents and the addition of respondents.

The Board ruled that service on a party's agent or counsel would be sufficient, and established a procedure for amending applications to add respondents by analogy to the Board's Rules of Procedure, requiring the applicant to provide amended filings and notice to all parties.

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

The respondent employer requested a revision of the geographic boundaries of Board area #19, which the Board declined to do without broader consultation.

The Board also resolved several disputes regarding the composition of the bargaining unit, finding that three individuals exercised managerial functions and were excluded, while determining the status of others as labourers or operators.

As the union's membership evidence demonstrated support of not less than forty-five per cent but not enough for automatic certification, the Board ordered a representation vote.

The applicant trade union applied for certification, filing membership evidence for more than 55 per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit.

The objectors alleged that union organizers misled employees by stating that the initiation fee was one dollar during the campaign but would be ten dollars later, thereby coercing them into signing membership cards.

The Board found that while one organizer improperly used the two-tier fee structure as a sales tactic, the remaining membership evidence was reliable and still represented more than 55 per cent of the unit.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to order a representation vote and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The union applied for the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer failed to appear at the hearing, instead sending a telegram arguing the Board had lost jurisdiction because the hearing did not commence within the 21-day statutory time limit, and requesting reconsideration of the original direction to arbitrate.

The Board held that the time limit was directory, not mandatory, and declined to reconsider the original panel's decision.

Proceeding on the merits in the employer's absence, the Board settled the first collective agreement based on a model agreement from a related company, imposing the statutory two-year term.

The complainant, a union member on strike from his regular employment, alleged that his union breached section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to refer him to a job through its hiring hall.

The union applied its 'two-job rule', which required members to quit their current employment before being dispatched to a new job.

The complainant argued this rule was applied arbitrarily and discriminatorily, particularly compared to the treatment of 'travellers' from other locals.

The Board found that the rule had a cogent labour relations purpose to equitably distribute work among unemployed members.

The Board concluded the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith, and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant union brought a motion requesting the Board to direct the respondents to comply with the duty imposed by sections 1(5) and 63(13) of the Labour Relations Act to adduce all material facts regarding successor rights and related employer allegations.

The respondents had tendered witnesses who could only provide hearsay evidence regarding the formation of the related entities.

The Board held that the tendering of hearsay evidence did not comply with its previous direction or the statutory onus, as the applicant is entitled to cross-examine on the direct considerations involved in the transactions.

The Board directed the respondents to tender direct evidence concerning the events leading up to the formation of the entities.

The applicant employee sought to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union argued the application was untimely and should be postponed pending the resolution of outstanding unfair labour practice complaints against the employer.

The Board found the application timely and declined to postpone the hearing.

However, on the merits, the Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the statement of desire (petition) was voluntary, particularly given the history of employer unfair labour practices and the applicant's failure to call the key employee who originated the petition to testify.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and requested a pre-hearing vote.

After a rescheduled meeting with a Labour Relations Officer, the applicant failed to attend.

Despite the applicant's counsel submitting that the failure was due to inadvertent coincidences, the Board noted that the notice of meeting explicitly stated that failure to attend would result in rejection of the application.

Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of full-time Heritage Language Instructors employed by the respondent school board.

The Board determined that a unit limited to Heritage Language Instructors was not appropriate, finding that all instructors employed by the board shared a community of interest and should be included in a single unit.

The Board also considered whether to exclude part-time instructors from the unit.

Departing from its traditional 24-hour rule for part-time employees, the Board concluded that instructors working 10 hours or less per week should be excluded from the bargaining unit.

The applicant union and grievor, a union steward, filed a grievance after the grievor was discharged following a verbal exchange with the respondent's superintendent.

The superintendent had angrily confronted the crew about their productivity, threatening to fire them, to which the grievor responded, 'I'm the shop steward, get the message.' The employer argued this constituted insubordination justifying discharge.

The Board found that the superintendent's tone provoked the response and that a union steward has the right to reasonably challenge management authority.

The Board concluded the grievor's conduct did not merit discipline, allowed the grievance, and ordered compensation for lost earnings.

The Board reconsidered its earlier decision certifying the union for a 'tag-end' bargaining unit.

The earlier unit description inadvertently included part-time production workers because it was framed broadly to avoid fragmentation.

The Board revoked the previous certificate and issued an interim certificate specifically for laboratory staff, pending submissions on the history of part-time laboratory employees.

The applicant union referred two grievances to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer objected to the Board's jurisdiction, arguing it did not operate a business in the construction industry.

The respondent's business involved fabricating and setting up temporary display structures for shows and exhibitions.

The Board applied the fixture versus chattel distinction and found that the temporary, moveable display structures were chattels rather than fixtures or real property.

Consequently, the Board held that the respondent was not an employer in the construction industry and dismissed the applications for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The respondent employer argued that the two sheet metal workers referred to it by the union's hiring hall were independent contractors, not employees, due to the transitory nature of their engagement.

The Board held that the workers were employees, noting that short-term hiring hall referrals are characteristic of employment relationships in the construction industry.

The Board granted the application for certification.

The applicant union sought certification and filed unfair labour practice complaints against the respondent hospital.

In an interim ruling, the Ontario Labour Relations Board addressed two evidentiary issues.

First, the Board permitted the applicant to lead evidence of events that occurred prior to a previously withdrawn certification application, but only for the limited purpose of establishing a pattern of unlawful activity.

Second, the Board allowed the respondent to adduce evidence regarding its motivation for dismissing six nurses, despite the respondent not having raised this defence earlier, finding that the applicant's right of reply would cure any prejudice.

The complainants, four warehouse employees, refused to work due to a noxious odour emanating from a shipment of Italian wallpaper, which caused them headaches and nausea.

After an inspector issued an interim order requiring the employer to provide respirators, the employer failed to promptly recall the employees and subsequently dismissed two of them.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employees had reasonable grounds to refuse the work under section 23 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board held that the employer violated section 24 of the Act by penalizing the employees and dismissing two of them in reprisal for exercising their rights.

The Board ordered reinstatement and compensation for lost wages.

The applicant union sought certification to represent private home day-care providers associated with the respondent agency.

The respondent argued the providers were independent contractors.

The Board examined the relationship, noting the providers' economic dependence on the agency for referrals and income, as well as the agency's control over training, standards, and discipline.

The Board concluded the providers were dependent contractors within the meaning of section 1(1)(h) of the Labour Relations Act, and therefore employees under the Act.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicants sought a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

They submitted a petition signed by employees indicating they no longer wished to be represented by the union.

The Board found that the petition was tainted by the involvement of a junior member of management, who had directed the lead applicant to her husband for assistance in filing the application.

Due to this management involvement, the Board concluded the petition was not a voluntary expression of the employees' desires and dismissed the application.

One Board Member dissented, arguing the management contact was incidental and did not constitute improper influence.

The complainants, members of the respondent trade union, alleged that the union violated section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by acting arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith in its operation of the hiring hall.

Specifically, they complained about five instances where members were referred to work out of order from the out-of-work list.

The Board found that the business manager's policy of referring the best qualified members to act as stewards, regardless of their position on the list, had a rational basis and was not applied improperly.

Other out-of-order referrals were justified by a grievance settlement and an employer's specific request for a short-term emergency job.

The complaint was dismissed.