Employment and Labour Law

The applicant union applied for certification of employees at the respondent's home for the aged.

The parties agreed on two appropriate bargaining units (full-time and part-time/students) but disputed the inclusion of persons employed under a governmental training program.

The respondent argued these subsidized employees lacked a community of interest with other employees.

The Board found that subsidized employees perform similar work to unsubsidized employees and that their interests are best addressed by including them in the bargaining units.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining units and directed that certificates issue to the applicant.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer failed to apply a 'time and one-seventh' shift differential when calculating pension, welfare, and union dues contributions for second-shift workers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the shift differential applied to all 'per hour paid' benefits, not just base wages.

Although the Board found it had jurisdiction to remedy breaches under prior expired agreements, it limited the retroactive remedy to the current and most recently expired collective agreements.

The Board reasoned that the union's failure to verify the calculations or raise the issue for over eight years demonstrated an indifference that made full retroactive recovery inequitable.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

A group of employees filed a petition objecting to the certification, which included signatures from employees who had previously signed union membership cards.

The Board assessed the voluntariness of the petition and found it inadmissible due to the involvement of a working foreman, who was perceived by employees as having managerial authority.

As the union demonstrated membership support of over fifty-five percent, the Board granted the application and issued certificates for the appropriate bargaining units.

The applicant union applied for a right of access to the respondent employer's remote highway construction site under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act for organizing purposes.

The parties agreed on most terms of access but disputed the effective date and whether union representatives must sign a waiver of liability.

The Board ordered immediate access, rejecting the employer's request for a delay until the owner could be present.

The Board also held that the statutory right of access should not be conditional on waiving liability for potential injury or loss, noting that union representatives had agreed to abide by safety regulations.

A dissenting board member would have required the waiver, arguing that the employer should not bear the potential costs of union organizing activities.

Following a finding that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to process the complainants' grievances regarding layoff selection, the Board convened a hearing to determine the appropriate remedy.

The Board decided to interpret the collective agreement itself rather than referring the matter to arbitration, finding that the union's internal conflict made arbitration inappropriate.

The Board concluded that the collective agreement required layoffs to be based on departmental seniority rather than mill seniority.

The Board awarded compensation to the complainants for lost wages during specific layoff periods, plus interest, but denied their request for costs.

A grievance was referred to the Board concerning an employer's refusal to employ a sheet metal worker referred through the union hiring hall.

The worker had a prior compensable back injury and the employer's last information from the Workers' Compensation Board indicated he was only fit for modified work.

The employer refused to allow the worker on a heavy industrial job site without updated medical clearance.

The Board held that, analogous to an industrial setting, the employer had reasonable grounds to require medical clearance before allowing the worker to perform unrestricted duties, and dismissed the grievance.

During a hearing into an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the union bargained to impasse over a single collective agreement, the union sought production of the employer negotiator's notes to test his credibility regarding alleged strike threats.

The Board ordered partial production of the notes, balancing the union's right to make a full defence against the employer's right to maintain the secrecy of its negotiating strategy.

The Board restricted production to notes directly relevant to the alleged threats and the specific proposals at issue, excluding notes detailing the employer's broader bargaining strategy.

The applicant referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent raised preliminary objections, arguing that the grievance was not delivered prior to the referral and that the applicant failed to follow the grievance procedure in the collective agreement.

The Board dismissed both objections, finding that the grievance was presumed delivered by mail under section 113(1) of the Act and that section 124 creates a distinct dispute resolution process separate from the collective agreement.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of laboratory employees at the respondent's manufacturing facility.

The employer argued that the laboratory staff shared a community of interest with the office staff and that a separate unit would unduly fragment the bargaining structure.

The Board found that the laboratory employees had a significantly stronger community of interest with the organized production workers than with the office staff.

To avoid undue fragmentation, the Board determined that the appropriate bargaining unit should be framed as a tag-end unit encompassing all unrepresented employees, including the laboratory staff.

The Board issued a certificate as the union had the requisite membership support.

In an application for certification, an intervener union filed its own application for certification.

The Board considered whether employees must be given notice of the intervener's application.

Both the applicant and intervener opposed giving notice, arguing that a vote was likely and employee petitions would be irrelevant.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that employees have a right to participate in certification proceedings and must be given meaningful notice of a second application.

The Board directed the employer to post notices of the intervener's application.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's Brown's Line location.

The respondent argued that the appropriate unit should include employees at both its Brown's Line and Queensway locations in Metropolitan Toronto.

Applying the Usarco criteria, the Board found a strong community of interest between the employees at the two locations due to integrated operations and regular employee movement.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit encompassed all employees in Metropolitan Toronto.

As the union's membership evidence related to fewer than 45 per cent of the employees in this broader unit, the application was dismissed.

The complainant alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to process a timely individual grievance after the employer refused to recall him following a strike.

The union had filed an improper policy grievance and failed to forward the complainant's medical clearance to the employer.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union's conduct demonstrated an indifferent and non-caring attitude towards the complainant.

The Board ordered the union to refile the grievance and the employer to process it without objection to timeliness.

The complainant union alleged that the employer violated sections 66 and 70 of the Labour Relations Act by requiring two employees to withdraw their grievances as a condition of accepting alternative job offers after their positions were declared redundant.

The Board found that while the employer made the withdrawal of grievances a pre-condition to the job offers, this conduct occurred in the context of attempting to settle the dispute and fulfill its collective agreement obligations.

The Board concluded that the employer's actions did not constitute unlawful coercion, intimidation, or a threat of penalty under the Act, and dismissed the complaint.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees applied for certification of a part-time bargaining unit at the Toronto General Hospital.

The central issue was whether students employed during the school vacation period should be included in the part-time unit or excluded.

The Hospital argued for their exclusion, citing potential conflicts of interest and the viability of a separate student unit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied its established policy of grouping part-time employees and summer students together to avoid undue fragmentation.

Finding no compelling evidence of irreconcilable conflict or that the students could form a viable separate unit, the Board ordered the inclusion of summer students in the part-time bargaining unit and issued a certificate.

The complainant, a structural steelfitter's helper, was assigned sweeping duties upon returning to work.

He objected to the assignment, considering it a constructive demotion, and was eventually discharged for refusing to sweep.

The union assisted him in filing a discharge grievance and attempted to negotiate his reinstatement, but the complainant refused to return if it meant sweeping.

The union membership subsequently voted against taking the grievance to arbitration.

The complainant alleged the union breached its duty of fair representation.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding no evidence of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union, which had reasonably concluded the employer was within its rights to assign the work.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The respondent employer argued the bargaining unit should be limited to the residential sector.

The Board ruled that the unit applied for, relating to the industrial, commercial and institutional sector, was appropriate under s. 144(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board appointed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the employee status of several individuals.

The Board also declined to conduct its own inquiry into an allegation of conditional payment for union membership, ruling that the respondent must prove the allegation in the ordinary course.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated the duty to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act.

The parties had agreed on the effective commencement date of a one-year collective agreement during mediation.

Following a strike, the union ratified the agreement based on this understanding.

The employer subsequently refused to sign the agreement, claiming the commencement date had never been agreed upon.

The Board found the employer's testimony unreliable, concluded that an agreement on the date had been reached, and held that reneging on this agreed term after ratification constituted bad faith bargaining.

The employer was directed to execute the collective agreement.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking unpaid vacation pay for five employees.

The respondent subcontractor argued that the general contractor, Konvey Construction, should be liable because the respondent had signed an authorization directing Konvey to pay its obligations.

The Board held that the arrangement between the respondent and Konvey did not affect the respondent's obligations to the union and its members under the provincial agreement.

The Board directed the respondent to pay the agreed amounts of vacation pay.

The union requested a determination of employee status for twelve individuals under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer argued that the union was precluded from requesting this determination due to a prior agreement between the parties regarding exclusions from the bargaining unit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rejected the employer's argument, holding that an examination of duties and responsibilities is permitted during negotiations for the renewal of a collective agreement, notwithstanding a prior agreement as to status.

The Board confirmed the appointment of a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the duties and responsibilities of the disputed individuals.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The employer filed a list of employees, and a group of employees filed a petition opposing the certification, including some who had previously signed union membership cards.

The Board inquired into the voluntariness of the petition, which was circulated by a working foreman who, while not managerial, had a special relationship with the employer.

The Board found that the foreman's involvement could reasonably influence employees to sign the petition to avoid exposing their union allegiance.

Consequently, the Board declined to give weight to the petition and certified the union based on its documentary evidence of membership.