Employment and Labour Law

The intervener employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complainant's unfair labour practice complaint on the basis of extreme delay.

The complainant had been discharged in September 1984, and his grievance was withdrawn by the respondent union in April 1985.

The complaint was not filed until August 1987.

The Board considered the reasons for the delay, which included issues with obtaining and maintaining a legal aid certificate, a change of address, and changing solicitors.

The Board found that while there was some unwarranted delay, it was not so extreme as to warrant dismissal without a hearing on the merits, particularly since the respondent union did not seek dismissal and the intervener established no specific prejudice.

The motion to dismiss was denied.

The applicant union applied for certification and had to establish its status as a 'trade union' under the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer and objecting employees argued that the applicant was not a trade union because its constitution was not properly ratified by its members.

The Board found that the applicant, as a local chartered by the Canadian Labour Congress, was formed pursuant to an existing constitution, and the founding members agreed to be bound by it upon application for the charter.

The Board concluded the applicant is a trade union and directed a representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification and challenged the status of the intervener union, arguing it was no longer a trade union, had abandoned its bargaining rights, and was subject to employer interference.

The Board found that although the intervener had not strictly followed its constitution, it continued to operate as a trade union.

The Board also found that the intervener had maintained a sufficient collective bargaining relationship with the respondent employer, and there was no evidence of employer participation in its administration.

As a valid collective agreement existed between the respondent and the intervener, it constituted a bar to the application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The respondent employer requested a hearing, arguing that certification would cause severe financial hardship and that temporary employees should not be counted.

The Board declined to hold a hearing, finding that the consequences of certification and the temporary nature of employment are not relevant to the statutory determinations required for certification.

Finding that the applicant had the requisite membership support of more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the bargaining unit, the Board granted the application and issued the certificates.

The applicants filed an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union argued the application was untimely because a conciliation officer had already been appointed following the union's notice to bargain.

The applicants argued that the union failed to give notice of the conciliation appointment and that the statutory time limits violated their freedom of association under the Charter.

The Board dismissed the application as untimely under section 61(2) of the Labour Relations Act, finding that the union had no obligation to notify employees of the conciliation appointment and that the Charter argument could not be entertained without notice to the Attorneys General.

The applicant requested that the Board convene a hearing to deal with the issue of the status of the intervener prior to the examinations scheduled by the Labour Relations Officer.

The Board denied the request, noting that its usual practice, as set out in Practice Note #4, is to deal with issues of law, including preliminary ones such as the status of a party, after receiving the Labour Relations Officer's report and the submissions of the parties.

The Board directed the Officer to continue with the enquiry.

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

A dispute arose regarding whether the employees of the respondent contractor should be included in a bargaining unit from a related proceeding involving Great Lakes Forest Products Limited.

The Board deferred its decision on whether to consolidate the applications under section 103(3) of the Act until after the pre-hearing representation vote, directing that the vote proceed and the ballot box be sealed.

The respondent requested that the Board reconsider its decision certifying the applicant and intervener unions, and reopen the hearing.

The respondent had failed to attend the scheduled certification hearing because its counsel erroneously assumed the hearing would be postponed after obtaining an extension to file a reply.

The Board held that a party cannot evade the consequences of its counsel's mistakes and that the clear wording of the notice of hearing warned of the consequences of non-attendance.

The Board found no compelling reason or new evidence to justify reconsideration.

The request was denied and the certificates affirmed.

The complainant filed an unfair labour practice complaint against her union and employer.

The parties signed Minutes of Settlement where the complainant agreed to withdraw the complaint in exchange for $2,500.

After receiving and cashing the cheque, the complainant retained counsel and attempted to repudiate the settlement, arguing she was unrepresented when she signed it and the amount was inadequate.

The Board held that the lack of legal representation does not negate a settlement agreement and that allowing parties to repudiate settlements would undermine the resolution process.

The complaint was withdrawn in accordance with the settlement.

The applicant union sought reconsideration of an oral ruling by the Ontario Labour Relations Board that declined to consolidate an application for certification with three related unfair labour practice complaints.

The union argued that the proceedings involved overlapping evidence regarding the employer's relocation of its production facilities.

Upon reconsideration, the Board agreed that while formal consolidation was inappropriate due to differing parties and legal interests, the substantial overlap in evidence made it preferable for all four matters to be heard together.

The Board varied its previous ruling and directed the Registrar to schedule the proceedings to be heard together.

The applicant employer applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether certain individuals were guards.

The individuals performed a mix of security and clerical duties, primarily watching and reporting, without exercising monitorial or regulatory authority over other employees.

The Board applied the test of whether their duties raised a real possibility of a conflict of interest with other employees.

Finding no such conflict, the Board concluded the individuals were not employed as guards and therefore not excluded from the bargaining unit.

The union applied for certification of an 'all employee' bargaining unit at a nursing home, including graduate and registered nurses.

The employer objected, arguing that past Board practice and community of interest required excluding nurses from service units.

The Board found that past practice in the nursing home sector was not invariable and that the employer provided no specific facts or evidence to demonstrate that including the nurses would cause serious labour relations problems or that they lacked a community of interest with other employees.

The Board concluded the proposed units were appropriate and included the nurses.

A dissenting member argued that established Board precedent required separating nurses from service employees.

The interveners sought clarification and reconsideration of a prior Board decision regarding document production and summonses.

The Board clarified its directions, varied one subparagraph on consent, and otherwise denied the request for reconsideration.

The Board affirmed that the documents in question were arguably relevant to the issues and must be produced, despite the potential burden of compliance.

In an application for certification, a representation vote was held but no ballots were cast because the employees were not on the job site.

The applicant union failed to object or request a new vote until almost three months later, well past the deadline.

The Board held that the test for timeliness of objections is whether, with reasonable diligence, the factual basis would not have come to the objector's attention before the deadline.

Finding that the applicant failed to exercise reasonable diligence, the Board denied the request for a new vote and dismissed the application.

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

The Board found that the employer had engaged in unfair labour practices during the organizing campaign, which chilled employee support.

During bargaining, the employer refused to provide the union with the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and wage rates of bargaining unit employees, and maintained uncompromising positions without reasonable justification.

The Board concluded that the collective bargaining process had been unsuccessful due to the employer's refusal to recognize the union's bargaining authority and its failure to make reasonable efforts to conclude an agreement.

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

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

The Board declined to adopt the bargaining unit description agreed upon by the applicant and respondent, finding it problematic and lacking the incumbent's agreement.

Instead, the Board defined the voting constituency based on the incumbent's existing collective agreement, excluding employees of contractors.

Finding that not less than 35 per cent of the employees in the voting constituency were members of the applicant, the Board directed a pre-hearing representation vote.

The respondent and intervener requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsider its previous decision, which had found the respondent in violation of a collective agreement and ordered it to pay damages.

The Board reconsidered and revoked its previous decision pursuant to section 106(1) of the Labour Relations Act because the intervener had not received notice of the original hearing.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to be listed for a hearing de novo before a different panel.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of the respondent's employees.

The Board reconsidered and varied a portion of its previous decision regarding the intervener's bargaining rights.

On the merits of the certification, the Board refused to allow the respondent to add an employee to the list after multiple previous amendments, noting the information was always in the respondent's control.

The Board also found the applicant's documentary evidence of membership to be unambiguous and reliable.

As the applicant demonstrated membership support of over fifty-five percent, the Board issued certificates to the applicant without a representation vote.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act, challenging the validity of subcontracting clauses in the respondent union's collective agreements.

The respondent and interveners brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint without a hearing.

The Board found that the complainant had previously filed an identical complaint years earlier, which had been adjourned sine die.

The Board held that the excessive delay in prosecuting the matter and the attempt to litigate the same issues in a new complaint constituted an abuse of process.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 89(4) to refuse to entertain the complaint and dismissed it, while directing the Registrar to relist the original adjourned complaint to determine its status.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The Board raised the issue of whether section 13 of the Labour Relations Act prohibited certification because the applicant's local constitution restricted membership to citizens of the United States or Canada.

The Board found that while the local constitution contained a citizenship requirement, the parent union's constitution prohibited discrimination on the basis of national origin and expressly prevailed over inconsistent local provisions.

Therefore, the applicant was not governed by a requirement restricting membership to citizens and was not prohibited from certification under section 13.

The matter was relisted to determine the appropriate bargaining unit.