Employment and Labour Law

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer hospital.

The employer engaged in significant misconduct, including altering schedules, terminating the entire registered nurses' bargaining unit, and circulating threatening letters prior to a representation vote, which the union lost.

The Board found the employer violated the statutory freeze and committed unfair labour practices tainted by anti-union animus.

The Board ordered extensive remedies, including reinstatement and compensation, and exercised its discretion under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act to certify the union, finding the employer's actions made it unlikely that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained in a representation vote.

The complainant, a third-party contractor, sought relief under sections 89, 92, and 135 of the Labour Relations Act after its work was interrupted by a picket line established by the respondent unions.

The picket line was related to a dispute involving the Toronto Transit Commission, which was governed by the special Transit Labour Disputes Act.

The Board held that the special Act exhaustively enumerated the remedies available for its enforcement, which did not include sections 89 or 135 of the Labour Relations Act.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the section 89 and 135 complaints for lack of jurisdiction and directed the complainant to advise if it wished to proceed with the section 92 application.

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

The Board considered whether it could direct a vote despite the applicant's failure to file a new Form 9 Declaration for membership evidence transferred from a previous file.

The Board held that the absence of a proper Form 9 Declaration does not prevent the taking of a pre-hearing vote, but directed that the ballot box be sealed until a proper declaration is filed.

The Board also declined the applicant's request to conduct the vote by mail, noting the administrative costs and frailties of mailed ballots, and referred the method of voting to the Registrar.

The applicant union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration pursuant to section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The union argued that collective bargaining was unsuccessful because the respondent employer maintained uncompromising positions without reasonable justification, specifically insisting on a three-year term and refusing to include a seniority rights or job security clause.

The Board found that the employer's refusal to grant seniority rights, especially given the history of unlawful terminations for union activity, and its insistence on a three-year term were without reasonable justification.

The Board directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The respondent employer requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsider its decision certifying the applicant union without a hearing.

The employer argued that the Board erred by not applying the '30/30' rule to determine the number of employees and by not applying the build-up principle, given an anticipated increase in the workforce.

The Board declined to reconsider, reaffirming its consistent practice in the construction industry of counting only employees actually at work on the application date and not applying the build-up principle.

The complainant union filed a section 89 complaint alleging that the employer's persistent failure to adhere to collective agreement restrictions on foremen performing bargaining unit work amounted to a violation of section 50 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer argued the issue was one of contract interpretation and requested deferral to arbitration.

The Board found that there was no broad repudiation of the collective agreement or the bargaining agent, and the issue was classically one for an arbitrator to decide based on the specific exceptions in the collective agreement.

The Board deferred the matter to arbitration and adjourned the complaint sine die for a period of one year.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union failed to provide him with an audited financial statement, contrary to section 87(2) of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, and that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 76 by donating funds contrary to its constitution.

The Board ordered the union to provide the financial statement, finding that mere access to the information did not satisfy the statutory requirement.

However, the Board dismissed the section 76 complaint, holding that the duty of fair representation only regulates the union's conduct vis-a-vis the employer, and the alleged constitutional breach was a purely internal union matter.

The applicant union filed two applications for certification in the construction industry.

A group of employees filed statements of desire in opposition.

At the hearing, the representative for the objecting employees requested an adjournment, arguing he had not received adequate notice of the hearing.

The Board found that the representative had not been served with a notice of hearing because the statement he filed lacked his return address and did not explicitly identify him as the representative.

However, because the Board also failed to issue a general notice to employees at the employer's address, the representative did not receive adequate notice.

The Board granted the adjournment to allow the representative time to retain counsel.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking a determination that there was an established local area work practice of its members performing the cutting and placing of lagging within its geographic jurisdiction.

The Board acted as the committee provided for under the provincial agreement to determine the work practice.

After reviewing the evidence of lagging work on industrial and commercial construction sites, the Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that contractors bound to the agreement had recognized the union's claim to the work.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry and challenged the respondent employer's list of employees.

The union argued that four employees who were laid off on the morning of the application date, before reporting to work, should be included in the bargaining unit count.

The Board held that in construction industry applications, only employees actually at work on the date of application are included in the count.

Since the four employees did not perform any work on that date, they were excluded from the count.

The applicant union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the respondent travel agency.

The respondent challenged the Ontario Labour Relations Board's jurisdiction, arguing its business of assembling and selling international and interprovincial package tours fell under federal jurisdiction as either integral to a federal work or undertaking (air/rail travel) or as an extra-provincial undertaking itself.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the respondent's business was not integral to the operation of an air or rail service, but rather utilized those services for its own customers.

Furthermore, the Board held that the respondent was not engaged in an extra-provincial undertaking, as its primary business was assembling and selling tours within Ontario, and the extra-provincial services were performed by contracted third parties.

The Board affirmed its jurisdiction and directed the matters to be relisted for hearing on the merits.

The respondent employer requested an adjournment of an unfair labour practice hearing to provide notice to 25 employees who continued to work during a lawful strike.

The employer argued that the union's requested remedial relief could affect the rights of these employees.

The Board denied the adjournment request, finding that the interests of the 25 employees were incidental to the main issues between the employer and the union, and that they were not entitled to status as parties or notice of the proceedings.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer bargained in bad faith contrary to section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to table a monetary offer and by insisting to impasse on a clause allowing discharge without just cause upon payment of severance.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union had never requested a monetary offer.

Regarding the discharge clause, the Board held that it does not monitor the content of bargaining proposals unless they are illegal or indicate surface bargaining.

Since a clause permitting discharge without cause is not per se illegal, the employer's insistence on it did not violate the duty to bargain in good faith.

The applicant union applied for certification of employees at seven of the respondent's bank branches in Metropolitan Toronto.

The union requested that the seven branches be consolidated into a single bargaining unit, while the employer argued that the only appropriate units were either individual branches or a single unit of all 37 branches in Metropolitan Toronto.

The Board reviewed the jurisprudence on bargaining unit appropriateness and fragmentation.

The Board concluded that the seven branches shared a sufficiently coherent community of interest to bargain together on a viable basis without causing serious labour relations problems for the employer.

The Board consolidated the seven branches into a single bargaining unit but maintained its practice of separating part-time and full-time employees.

The complainant filed a complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging he was terminated for raising safety concerns.

The union had already filed a grievance on his behalf and proceeded to schedule an arbitration hearing.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the Board complaint, arguing the complainant had elected the arbitration route under section 24(2) of the Act.

The Board agreed, finding that by allowing the union to proceed to the point of scheduling an arbitration hearing without objection, the complainant had elected arbitration and could not pursue the same matter before the Board.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant employer association alleged that the respondent union and employee bargaining agency violated the Labour Relations Act by refusing to bargain and execute an appendix to the provincial collective agreement.

The union argued that signing the appendix would violate its international constitution regarding the use of vehicles and travel cards.

The Board held that a union cannot contract out of the Labour Relations Act through its constitution.

Finding a continued breach of the duty to bargain in good faith, the Board ordered the employee bargaining agency to execute the appendix.

In an unfair labour practice complaint alleging termination for union activities, the respondent sought to introduce polygraph evidence to prove his lack of anti-union animus.

The complainant union objected, citing the Employment Standards Act's prohibition on lie detector tests in employment.

The Board ruled the polygraph evidence inadmissible, finding that its introduction would put employees at a tactical disadvantage and undermine the legislative intent protecting employees from such tests.

A dissenting member would have allowed the evidence to be considered for its relevance.

The applicant union filed a grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act seeking remittances from the respondent employer.

The employer argued it was not bound by the collective agreement, alleging the union representative misrepresented the terms of a voluntary recognition agreement before it was signed.

The Board found no material misrepresentation, concluding the employer simply misunderstood the scope of the agreement.

The Board declared the employer bound by the Provincial Agreement and remained seized of the quantum of damages.

The complainant union alleged that the grievor was discharged contrary to section 66 of the Labour Relations Act due to his union activities during a legal strike.

The employer maintained the grievor was discharged for intimidating and threatening conduct on the picket line when he reached into a company van transporting replacement workers.

The Board found the employer met its burden under section 89(5) to prove the discharge was not motivated by anti-union animus, but rather by the grievor's picket line misconduct.

The Board also found no breach of the Act regarding the employer's failure to reinstate the grievor under the 'no reprisals' clause, as the settlement was prospective.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

During the proceedings, an objecting employee alleged a 'non-pay', claiming she had not paid the required one dollar for her membership card.

While the Board found the evidence on the non-pay conflicting, it discovered that the union official who signed the Form 9 Declaration Concerning Membership Documents had failed to make any inquiries of the actual collectors regarding the collection of the one-dollar payments.

Applying established Board jurisprudence, the Board held that the failure to make the required inquiries rendered the Form 9 declaration invalid.

Consequently, the membership evidence could not be relied upon, and the application for certification was dismissed.