Employment and Labour Law

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration alleging that the respondent municipality violated the subcontracting clause of the provincial agreement by contracting electrical work to a non-union contractor.

The respondent argued it was acting as an owner, not an employer in the construction industry, and that it did not 'sublet' the work.

The Board found that the respondent was an employer in the construction industry and bound by the provincial agreement.

However, the Board dismissed the grievance, concluding that the respondent did not 'sublet' the work within the meaning of the agreement because it was not under a prior contractual obligation to perform the work.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether he had the authority to appoint a conciliation officer at the request of Local 206.

The employer argued that Local 206 had ceased to exist or was no longer a trade union due to a merger with Local 175.

The Board found that Local 206 had not surrendered its charter, continued to exist as an unincorporated association, and retained its status as a trade union under the Labour Relations Act.

Therefore, the Board advised the Minister that he had the authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the respondent was a successor employer following the purchase of a tavern and transfer of its liquor licence.

The respondent argued that no sale of a business occurred because the transaction involved a mortgagee in possession and the premises had been closed.

Alternatively, the respondent sought to terminate bargaining rights due to a substantial change in the character of the business, citing a shift to a 'goth' theme and new wave music.

The Board found that a sale of a business had occurred, as the essential elements, including the premises and liquor licence, were transferred.

The Board also dismissed the request to terminate bargaining rights, holding that changes in decor and entertainment do not constitute a fundamental difference in the nature of the work.

The respondent was declared bound by the collective agreement.

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

During the union's organizing campaign, the employer's managers held one-on-one meetings with employees, questioning them about the union, and distributed gratuitous bonus cheques to compensate for lost tips due to ongoing renovations.

An employee subsequently circulated a petition opposing the union.

The Board found that the petition was not a voluntary expression of employee wishes, as the employer's actions created an environment where employees would reasonably perceive management opposition and surveillance.

The Board also held that the employer's interrogations and the timed payment of bonuses during individual meetings constituted undue influence and interference in violation of sections 64 and 66(c) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board certified the union and ordered the employer to post a notice of its violations.

The applicant sought accreditation as the bargaining agent for a group of employers in the construction industry.

The Board found the applicant to be a properly constituted employers' organization with the necessary authority to act as an accredited bargaining agent.

The parties agreed on a bargaining unit description that segregated the low-rise part of the residential sector.

The Board determined that, given the existing pattern of collective bargaining and the abandonment of bargaining rights by other associations in this specific sub-sector, there were clear and compelling reasons to divide the residential sector.

The Board approved the agreed-upon unit of employers as appropriate for collective bargaining.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a 1973 decision and certificate of accreditation to amend the name of the accredited employers' organization, clarify the geographic scope, and exclude the low-rise part of the residential sector of the construction industry.

The Board found that the current bargaining structure, the consent of the respondent union, and the position of the Mechanical Contractors Association Toronto justified the variation.

The Board noted that the accredited employers' organization had abandoned its bargaining rights in respect of the low-rise part of the residential sector.

The Board varied the decision and certificate accordingly.

During a hearing for a decertification application, the intervener employer brought a motion requesting that the panel and the entire Board disqualify themselves on the grounds of bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The motion was based on the Board's decision to raise the issue of the applicant's status and its direction that the employer proceed first to lead evidence regarding the circumstances of hiring.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that inquiring into the applicant's status was part of its statutory mandate under section 57 of the Labour Relations Act, and that directing the employer to lead evidence first was a procedural decision aimed at fairness and expedition, which did not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The complainant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act regarding two discharge grievances.

The first grievance, related to an illegal strike, was settled by the union without raising a subsequent incident where the complainant spat on a manager.

The Board dismissed this aspect of the complaint, finding the union's decision reasonable.

The second grievance related to the complainant's discharge for the spitting incident.

The union initially refused to file this grievance because it disagreed with the remedy requested by the complainant.

The Board found this initial refusal to be arbitrary and a violation of section 68.

However, because the union subsequently filed and processed the grievance, the Board limited its remedy to a declaration.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The parties disputed the inclusion of several employees in the bargaining unit, specifically whether they exercised managerial functions or performed bargaining unit work on the date of application.

The Board found that one employee was properly included, while three others were excluded due to exercising managerial functions or not performing bargaining unit work.

The Board also announced a policy shift, eliminating the use of a 'representative period' to determine employee status in construction industry certifications, instead focusing strictly on the work performed on the date of application.

Finding that the union had more than 55% support among the eligible employees, the Board granted the certification.

The applicant sought a declaration terminating the respondent union's bargaining rights.

Although 15 of 30 employees initially signed a petition against the union, two subsequently signed a counterpetition reaffirming their support before the assessment date.

The Board held that it must consider the last voluntary signification of wishes as of the assessment date.

Consequently, the applicant failed to demonstrate that at least 45 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit no longer wished to be represented by the union.

The application was dismissed, with one Board Member dissenting.

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

The Board previously found the two corporate respondents to be related employers.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit, deciding on a single unit for both companies and applying its usual geographic scope for the lumber industry.

The Board found that the employer violated sections 64 and 70 of the Labour Relations Act through a letter and statements made by the president, but concluded these breaches were not so flagrant as to prevent the true wishes of the employees from being ascertained in a representation vote.

The Board ordered remedial measures, including a notice to employees and union access, and directed a representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties agreed on a partial description of the bargaining unit but disputed the inclusion of numerous individuals based on managerial or confidential exclusions.

The union established sufficient membership support for certification.

The employer opposed the issuance of an interim certificate, arguing that the breadth of the dispute would make collective bargaining artificial and meaningless.

The Board granted the interim certificate, finding that meaningful bargaining could take place on many issues despite the dispute, and noting that section 6(2) of the Labour Relations Act was designed to prevent prejudice caused by delay in such circumstances.

Following a successful representation vote and certification of the Canadian Paperworkers Union, the intervener union requested that the Board revoke the certificate or order a new vote.

The intervener alleged that the applicant union distributed a forged legal opinion to employees prior to the vote.

The Board found that while a union representative had fabricated the letter, it did not constitute fraud under section 58 of the Labour Relations Act because it was not a representation made to the Board.

The Board declined to reconsider its decision or order a new vote, concluding that the contents of the letter did not deprive employees of their ability to exercise their critical faculties.

The applicant union applied under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The union argued that collective bargaining was unsuccessful due to the employer's uncompromising stance, which was dictated by funding constraints imposed by the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the employer had made reasonable efforts to conclude an agreement and had not engaged in bad faith bargaining.

The Board concluded that the parties were not yet at an impasse and could benefit from further negotiations.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer committed unfair labour practices by failing to bargain in good faith and interfering with the union's representational rights.

The employer delayed negotiations, cancelled meetings, and a member of management attended and disrupted a union meeting.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the employer violated sections 15, 64, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered extensive remedial relief, including directing the employer to prepare a collective agreement proposal, participate in mediation, provide the union with access to the workplace and employee lists, and pay monetary losses.

The applicant union requested that the Board defer hearing the merits of a work assignment complaint until it determined, under section 150 of the Labour Relations Act, which sector of the construction industry the disputed work fell into.

The respondents and intervener opposed the deferral, arguing the sector issue should be decided alongside the merits.

The Board agreed with the applicant, finding that the sector determination was integral to the complaint and could involve other parties with standing.

The Board authorized a Labour Relations Officer to identify parties for the sector determination and directed that the same panel hear both the sector issue and the merits.

The applicant union applied for certification and a representation vote was held, which the union won.

Following the vote, a group of objecting employees sought to have the vote set aside, alleging that a pervasive atmosphere of intimidation, including sporadic acts of property damage to vehicles, prevented the free expression of employee wishes.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board assumed the truth of the objectors' allegations but concluded they were insufficient to warrant setting aside the secret ballot vote.

The Board noted that the complaints were largely untimely, not directly linked to the union, and did not demonstrate that the voting process itself was compromised.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

In an application for certification involving seven branch offices of National Trust, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined whether certain employees exercised managerial functions under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board examined the duties of seven Assistant Branch Managers/Administration Officers, finding that four exercised managerial functions and were excluded from the bargaining unit, while three did not and were included.

The Board also determined that Administration Officer Trainees did not exercise managerial functions but were excluded from the bargaining unit on community of interest grounds.

Finally, the Board ruled that the original panel was not seized with the remaining issues in the proceeding.

The complainants alleged contraventions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Labour Relations Act.

During preliminary matters, the Board ruled on two issues.

First, the Board ordered that the complainant's adviser be permitted to attend a view of the respondent's premises, finding it necessary for a fair hearing and noting no prejudice to the respondent.

Second, the Board dismissed the respondent's request to exclude the press from the hearing room, holding that hearings are presumptively open to the public and the respondent had not met the onus under section 9(1)(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to justify an in camera hearing.

The union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the employer contravened the collective agreement by failing to recall a long-term employee after a layoff.

The collective agreement required the employer to exercise its management rights in a 'fair and reasonable' manner.

The Board found that the employer's continued assurances to the grievor that he would be recalled, while secretly deciding not to recall him, demonstrated a serious lack of regard and violated the fairness requirement.

The Board ordered compensation for the grievor.