Employment and Labour Law

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union applied for certification to represent employees of Canada Dry Bottling Company Ltd. in Peterborough.

The union filed sufficient membership evidence for automatic certification, but a group of employees filed a petition opposing the application.

The Board held a hearing to determine the voluntariness of the petition.

Due to a material gap in the evidence regarding the physical custody of the petition for a nine-hour period, the Board could not be satisfied that the petition was free from management influence.

The Board gave the petition no weight and granted the union's application for certification.

The applicant trade union originally applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board previously determined that the work performed was maintenance work, not construction work.

The applicant requested the application be processed under the general provisions of the Act.

The respondent and objecting employees opposed this request, citing procedural fairness.

The Board found no unfairness or prejudice and, following its established practice, ruled that the application would be treated as having been made under the general provisions.

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

The parties partially agreed on the bargaining unit description but disputed the exclusion of 'working foremen' as managerial personnel and the inclusion of a specific employee based on hours worked.

The Board appointed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into these disputed individuals.

The Board declined the applicant's request for a clarity note restricting the technical staff exclusion to specific classifications.

The Board found sufficient overlap between union membership cards and an employee petition opposing the union to make the petition relevant, necessitating a hearing on its voluntariness.

The matter was adjourned to hear evidence on the petition's voluntariness and newly raised allegations of misconduct by both parties.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union violated section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to properly pursue his grievance regarding a recall notice and refusing to refer it to arbitration.

The Board found that the union's treatment of the grievance over a period of almost a year and a half was cavalier, marked by unexplained delays, inconsistent information, and consideration of irrelevant factors.

The Board concluded that the union acted arbitrarily and directed it to process the grievance to arbitration.

The applicant employee applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The Board examined the voluntariness of the petition signed by employees in support of the application.

The Board found that the applicant had misrepresented to employees that he had a confidential source indicating that previous benefits would be reinstated if the union was decertified, leading employees to perceive a link with management.

Consequently, the Board concluded the petition was not voluntary and dismissed the application.

A dissenting board member would have ordered a representation vote.

The applicant trade union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer argued it was not an employer in the construction industry, as its painting work at petrochemical complexes was maintenance, not construction.

The Board found that the painting of existing structures for the primary purpose of sustaining and protecting operating systems constitutes maintenance work.

Consequently, the application was not properly made under the construction industry provisions.

The Board also struck out the respondent's allegations of union impropriety due to lack of particulars and rejected one membership card for failing to show a monetary payment.

Following a representation vote for full-time and part-time bargaining units, objecting employees challenged the voter eligibility of several individuals.

The Board applied its standard two-pronged eligibility rule, requiring an employee to be in the bargaining unit both on the date the vote is ordered and the date it is taken.

The Board found that temporary employees were eligible, but employees hired after the vote was ordered were not.

Furthermore, employees transferred from the part-time to the full-time unit between the two dates were ineligible to vote in either unit.

The Board upheld the full-time unit vote and certified the union, but directed a new vote for the part-time unit due to the participation of ineligible voters.

The employer applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of the employment status of eleven individuals, arguing they should be excluded from the bargaining unit under section 1(3)(b) because they exercised managerial functions or were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

The Board reviewed the duties and responsibilities of each individual, including benefits clerks, human resources assistants, payroll clerks, and occupational health nurses.

The Board concluded that only the Benefits Clerk was employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations and should be excluded.

The remaining ten individuals were found to be employees under the Act and properly included in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification.

During the hearing, it was revealed that the union organizer had loaned the one-dollar membership fee to two employees without any arrangement or intent for repayment.

The organizer also failed to disclose these loans as exceptions on the Form 80 Declaration Concerning Membership Documents.

The Board found the loans were not bona fide, meaning the employees had not paid the fee on their own behalf.

Because the Declaration was misleading and failed to make full disclosure, the Board declined to give any weight to the union's membership evidence and dismissed the application for certification.

The applicant union applied for certification and agreed with the respondent employer on a bargaining unit description for office and clerical employees that excluded technical employees.

Because this departed from the Board's usual 'office, clerical and technical' description, a hearing was held to determine its appropriateness.

The Board emphasized its statutory obligation to determine the appropriate unit regardless of the parties' agreement, but ultimately accepted the proposed unit as appropriate in the circumstances.

The Board appointed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the duties of several individuals whose inclusion in the unit remained in dispute.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description.

The union demonstrated membership support of 55.3 percent.

Employee objectors argued that 'more than 55 percent' under section 7(2) of the Labour Relations Act required at least 56 percent, and alternatively requested a representation vote due to alleged intimidation from recent parking lot vandalism.

The Board held that any fraction over 55 percent is sufficient for automatic certification.

The Board declined to order a representation vote, finding the vandalism allegations too remote to establish a chilling effect.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant general contractor sought discretionary relief under section 135 of the Labour Relations Act after a union representative threatened to set up an information picket line if the applicant used a non-union painting subcontractor.

The Board found that the union representative made the statements in anger but had no real intention of setting up a picket line, and no further actions were taken.

Concluding there was no strong likelihood of picketing and that the isolated statements did not warrant a cease and desist order, the Board dismissed the application.

The respondent employer applied for reconsideration of the Board's decision and sought a stay of the remedial order.

The employer argued the Board erred in law and jurisdiction, and that the original order improperly allowed the union to dictate the return to work protocol.

The Board dismissed the majority of the reconsideration request, finding no errors in its original decision or its internal consultation process.

However, the Board amended its remedial order regarding damages to clarify that the return to work protocol should be negotiated, changing the end date for compensation to the date the employer presents a non-discriminatory protocol.

One Board Member dissented, stating the reconsideration request should be granted in full.

The applicant sought an exemption from paying union dues to OPSEU under section 53 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, citing religious objections to the union's affiliation with the Ontario Federation of Labour (OFL), which had passed pro-choice resolutions and made donations to a pro-choice organization.

The applicant also alleged a breach of the duty of fair representation.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the duty of fair representation complaint did not involve representation in relation to the employer.

Regarding the religious exemption, the Board held that OPSEU's mere affiliation with the OFL and the OFL's actions were too remote to establish that the applicant objected to paying dues to OPSEU because of his religious convictions.

In an application for certification, the employer sought to exclude approximately one-third of the proposed bargaining unit on the basis of managerial functions, confidential labour relations capacity, or lack of community of interest.

To facilitate the resolution of these unusually broad exclusions and avoid a costly examination process, the Board directed the employer to file a detailed statement of facts and duties for the individuals challenged under section 1(3)(b) of the Act.

The Board also appointed a Board Officer to assist the parties in preparing an agreed statement of facts regarding the community of interest dispute.

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

The respondent argued that the occasional teachers were already covered by a subsisting collective agreement through voluntary recognition, pointing to a personnel manual incorporated into the agreement.

The Board rejected this argument, finding that the collective agreement and relevant legislation clearly excluded occasional teachers, and the personnel manual did not constitute a valid voluntary recognition agreement.

The Board found the proposed bargaining unit appropriate and, based on the results of a pre-hearing representation vote, granted certification to the applicant.

The applicant union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the employer transferred the chief union organizer and discharged two other union supporters due to anti-union animus.

The Board found that the employer's actions violated sections 64, 66, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

Concluding that the employer's misconduct created a climate where the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained, and noting the union had adequate membership support, the Board certified the union under section 8 of the Act and ordered the reinstatement of the discharged employees with compensation.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that had set out Minutes of Settlement and terminated the proceedings.

The applicant sought to have the Minutes issued as a decision of the Board rather than terminating the application.

The Board dismissed the request, noting that the parties had not requested specific orders or declarations, nor had they stipulated the factual elements necessary for the Board to make such orders.

The Board varied its decision only to note the signatory on behalf of the applicant.

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

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description, excluding the assistant manager due to managerial authority.

The applicant filed valid membership evidence for more than fifty-five percent of the employees.

However, a group of objecting employees filed a timely petition in opposition to the union, which included signatures of employees who had previously signed membership cards.

The Board determined it was necessary to hear evidence on the voluntariness of the petition to decide whether to exercise its discretion to order a representation vote.

The applicant union sought certification for a unit of editorial employees of the respondent's community newspapers.

The parties agreed on a department-wide unit but disputed its geographic scope.

The applicant proposed a broad unit covering multiple regional municipalities, while the respondent argued for separate units for each community newspaper based on municipal boundaries.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employees shared a strong community of interest due to centralized administration, common corporate policies, shared resources, and cross-publication promotional routes.

The Board concluded that the comprehensive unit sought by the applicant was viable, would not create labour relations difficulties, and did not impede employee access to collective bargaining.

The Board determined the appropriate geographic scope to include Metropolitan Toronto, several regional municipalities, and the Township of West Guillimbury.