Employment and Labour Law

During a pre-hearing conference for a jurisdictional dispute regarding asbestos removal in residential buildings, the parties disagreed on whether the complainant employer was bound by a collective agreement in the residential sector.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that the employer, as a member of the Master Insulators Association of Ontario Inc., was bound by the collective agreement.

The Board found that the agreement's terms explicitly covered all sectors of the construction industry, except the electrical power systems sector, and the union's attempt to negotiate a separate residential agreement did not negate the existing agreement's application to the residential sector.

The applicant union brought applications under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act following the conversion of several New Dominion stores to A & P stores.

The Board found that the conversions constituted a transfer of part of a business, making A & P the successor employer.

To resolve the conflict between the province-wide bargaining rights of the applicant and the existing rights of the intervener unions at the converted stores, the Board amended the applicant's scope clause to exclude the converted stores by street address and added a clarity note to the interveners' scope clauses to preserve their bargaining rights at those specific locations, without restricting their broader geographic scope.

The applicant referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondents' assignment of certain construction work to another union violated the collective agreement.

The respondents and the other union raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the grievance was essentially a jurisdictional dispute, which ousted the Board's jurisdiction under section 124.

The Board dismissed the objection, holding that while it may defer a section 124 grievance to a jurisdictional dispute proceeding under section 91 or a collective agreement mechanism as a matter of policy, its jurisdiction under section 124 is not ousted.

The Board also ruled that evidence regarding the collective agreement's dispute resolution mechanism was relevant to determining whether it should defer.

The complainant alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation under sections 68 and 69 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to properly process his grievances concerning his lay-off and the employer's subsequent refusal to rehire him.

The employer had refused to rehire the complainant because it believed he was responsible for an unlawful work stoppage.

The Board found that the union acted arbitrarily by failing to give the complainant an opportunity to respond to the damaging information it had received about his involvement in the work stoppage, and by failing to inform him that it had decided not to proceed with his grievance.

The Board ordered the union to compensate the complainant for the loss of opportunity to have his grievance arbitrated, valued at approximately one week's pay, and to post a notice.

The applicant applied for accreditation under section 125 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued an interim decision confirming a unanimous oral ruling establishing general guidelines for determining the composition of the employer unit and the related lists of employers and employees.

The Board set out criteria for deciding whether the respondent held bargaining rights in the sewers and watermains sector in Board area #8 and the scope of the work encompassed by the unit of employers.

During a hearing for an unfair labour practice complaint, the union requested to be added as a party but was denied due to its late intervention without justification.

Subsequently, the complainant objected to the introduction of his employment application as an exhibit and refused to deliver the document to the Board, claiming the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board ruled that it has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the admissibility of evidence and ordered the complainant to deliver the document by a specified date, failing which the complaint would be dismissed.

The corporate respondents sought production of certain documents and reconsideration of a previous Board decision regarding the validity of a certificate of accreditation.

The Board ordered the production of documents relating to the attempt by a group of residential low-rise contractors to join the Mechanical Contractors Association Toronto, finding them arguably relevant.

However, the Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, affirming that under section 106(1) of the Labour Relations Act, a certificate of accreditation is final and conclusive for all purposes and its validity cannot be challenged in a collateral proceeding before the Board.

The complainant union filed a complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding a jurisdictional dispute over heat recovery operator positions at a sewage treatment plant.

As a preliminary matter, the Board considered whether the complainant had abandoned its bargaining rights with the respondent municipality.

The Board found that the complainant had not engaged in collective bargaining since 1981, failed to respond to a notice to bargain, and acquiesced to the respondent's position that similar positions fell within another union's bargaining unit.

The Board concluded that the complainant had abandoned its bargaining rights and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant union sought certification for a unit of part-time employees of the respondent nursing and rest home.

The parties disputed whether there should be one inclusive bargaining unit or separate units for the nursing home and rest home.

The Board found that while the employees shared a community of interest, the Board's policy of having part-time units 'mirror' full-time units favoured separate units, as the parties had previously agreed to separate units for full-time employees.

The Board ordered separate bargaining units and issued certificates for both.

The applicants, employees of Fern Brand Waxes Ltd., applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union challenged the termination petition because 12 of the 22 signatures consisted of only first or last names, arguing this did not meet the formal requirements of the Board's Rule 73.

The Board found that the employees clearly intended the incomplete signatures to represent their names and that the petition was signed knowingly and voluntarily.

The Board accepted the petition and ordered a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, finding the incomplete signatures invalid.

The Board heard consolidated applications for union decertification, first contract arbitration, and unfair labour practices.

The Board dismissed the decertification application, finding the petition was not a voluntary expression of employee wishes due to the lingering impact of a unilateral wage increase, employer interference, and the taint of a prior involuntary petition.

The Board granted the union's application for first contract arbitration, concluding that the employer failed to make expeditious efforts to conclude a collective agreement, largely due to a failure to read union proposals and a lack of understanding of collective bargaining obligations.

The unfair labour practice complaints were reserved.

The parties agreed to have the Board arbitrate the settlement of their first collective agreement pursuant to section 40a(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board determined the matters in dispute, awarding moderate wage increases, extending sick leave and welfare benefits to permanent irregular employees, and limiting the employer's power to contract out work.

The Board accepted the matters agreed to by the parties and included a mandatory union membership provision as proposed by the employer.

The Board directed the execution of the arbitrated collective agreement.

The applicant trade unions sought to add Conrad Black and Hollinger Inc. as respondents to related employer and unfair labour practice applications involving Willett Foods Limited and various franchisees.

A previous panel of the Board had already dismissed a similar request by one of the unions to add Black and a predecessor corporation.

The Board applied principles analogous to res judicata and issue estoppel, finding that the new allegations did not materially alter the basis of the claims.

The Board reaffirmed that section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act is not intended merely to provide access to 'deep pockets' absent allegations of a transfer of work or other attempts to frustrate collective bargaining.

The request to add the respondents was denied, and the complaints against them were dismissed.

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

The Board found that not less than thirty-five per cent of the employees in the voting constituency were members of the applicant.

The Board directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be taken among occasional teachers employed by the respondent.

The applicant requested that the vote be conducted by mail, but the Board declined to direct a mail vote, referring the method of voting to the Registrar in accordance with its recent policy shift regarding occasional teacher votes.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent occasional teachers employed by the respondent school board.

The Board found that the applicant was a trade union and that the proposed bargaining unit of occasional teachers was appropriate.

The Board determined that occasional teachers were not covered by existing collective agreements with other unions, as they had been historically overlooked and fell under the Labour Relations Act by default.

Finding that more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the unit were members of the applicant, the Board granted the certificate.

The complainants, employees laid off from a Dominion Stores warehouse, alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

They claimed the union improperly refused to process their grievances regarding the lay-off, failed to file a bad faith bargaining complaint against the employer concerning store closures, and kept members in the dark.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaints, finding that the union had fairly considered the grievances in light of a negotiated lay-off arrangement and had reasonably concluded that a bad faith bargaining complaint would not succeed.

The Board found no evidence of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union.

The applicant applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights in the construction industry.

The respondent moved to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant was not an employee in the bargaining unit on the application date.

The Board granted the motion, applying its consistent practice in the construction industry of counting only those employees actually present at work on the application date.

Since the applicant was not at work on that date, he lacked status under section 57(2) of the Labour Relations Act to bring the application.

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

An intervening union opposed the application, alleging that the membership evidence was obtained with employer support.

The Board heard uncontradicted evidence that a principal of the respondent employer urged an employee to sign a union card for the applicant.

The Board concluded that the membership evidence did not express an independent voluntary decision and rejected it.

The application for certification was dismissed.

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

The respondent employer and the applicant agreed on the voting constituency.

However, the applicant filed a defective Form 9 declaration concerning membership documents.

The Board held that under subsection 9(2) of the Labour Relations Act, the Board only needs to determine if there is an appearance of membership support based on union and employer records, which combination application cards satisfy.

The Board directed the pre-hearing representation vote but ordered the ballot box sealed until a proper Form 9 declaration is filed.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, claiming retroactive room-and-board allowance for a worker at the Darlington construction project.

The worker had delayed filing the grievance for nearly three years despite being aware of the employer's refusal to pay the allowance.

The Board dismissed the grievance on the preliminary ground of laches, finding that the unjustified delay prejudiced the employer and that the worker had not been lulled into inaction by the employer's representations.