Employment and Labour Law

The applicant union applied for certification.

The intervener union sought intervener status, claiming it represented employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board considered whether dues check-off lists constitute membership evidence for intervener status, the appropriate time for determining representation, and when membership evidence must be filed.

The Board found that the intervener submitted adequate evidence of representation in a timely manner and granted it status to participate as an intervener.

The applicant union sought a direction under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act for access to the respondent employer's remote work camp to organize employees.

The employer conceded the Board's jurisdiction to grant access but disputed the terms, specifically opposing access to employee bunk houses.

The Board held that a section 11 direction puts union representatives in the same position as resident employees regarding communication opportunities, and that employees retain the right to deny access to their private rooms.

The Board granted the access direction on terms that included access to the bunk houses, subject to reasonable limitations on the number of representatives, hours of access, and duration of the order.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The employer objected to the appointment, arguing that while it had granted voluntary recognition, no collective agreement had been entered into and the parties had not yet met to bargain as required by section 15 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that under section 16 of the Act, the Minister has the authority to appoint a conciliation officer based on the voluntary recognition agreement alone, regardless of whether a collective agreement was subsequently reached or whether the parties had met face-to-face to bargain.

The applicant union, Local 353, sought a declaration of successor rights under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act, claiming it acquired the jurisdiction of Local 636 over the employees of the respondent employer.

The employer objected, arguing the transaction was not a transfer of jurisdiction and expressing concern about being bound by a provincial agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that a valid transfer of jurisdiction had occurred in accordance with the union's constitution, and that the employees had been adequately notified and voted in favour.

The Board granted the declaration, noting that a successor union acquires only the rights and privileges of its predecessor.

The applicant employer referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the respondent union violated the no-strike provision of their collective agreement.

The employer claimed that the union president instigated work stoppages at multiple construction sites after the employer's president refused to provide him with an unsecured personal loan.

The Board found that union representatives, acting on the president's instructions, directed employees to cease working, constituting an illegal strike under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board granted a declaration that the union violated the collective agreement and ordered the union to compensate the employer for all resulting losses, including wages paid to employees for hours not worked during the stoppages.

The complainants filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act, identical to an earlier complaint that had been dismissed due to their failure to attend a pre-hearing conference.

The respondents objected to the Board entertaining the new complaint, arguing res judicata and abuse of process.

The Board declined to apply res judicata, as the earlier dismissal was not an adjudication on the merits.

However, the Board exercised its discretion under section 91(1) to refuse to entertain the complaint, finding that the complainants lost their opportunity for a hearing through their own inadvertence and that reopening the matter would not serve any good industrial relations purpose.

The union applied for certification to represent taxicab drivers and owner-operators working under the Hamilton Yellow Cab banner.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the single car/plate owner-operators were dependent contractors, not independent contractors, due to their economic dependence on and control by Yellow Cab.

The Board ordered two separate bargaining units: one for dependent contractors and one for drivers.

Additionally, the Board declared Yellow Cab and Transportation Unlimited to be a single employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, but dismissed the related employer application regarding the other named respondents.

The applicant trade union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer and an intervening trade union argued that the grievance was rooted in a jurisdictional dispute over a work assignment, which should be resolved under the mutually selected Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes.

The applicant requested that the Board adjudicate the work assignment dispute within the section 124 proceeding and make the intervening union a party.

The Board declined, finding that doing so would undermine the statutory scheme under section 91(14) of the Act, which defers to the parties' selected tribunal for jurisdictional disputes, and would unnecessarily encumber the grievance arbitration with strangers to the collective agreement.

In an application for certification, the parties disputed whether 'Area Superintendents' exercised managerial functions under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

A labour relations officer was appointed to inquire into the duties of specific individuals.

The applicant union requested a hearing to argue that the officer should also hear evidence regarding the duties of 'Interpreters' (who were in the bargaining unit) for comparative purposes.

The Board deferred the request, ruling that the scope of the officer's inquiry would not be enlarged or made the subject of a hearing until the officer's report on the initially examined individuals was completed and circulated.

In an application for certification, a dispute arose over a segregated ballot cast by an employee who the union alleged had assumed managerial duties after the voters list was fixed but before the vote was taken.

The Board amended its previous direction, ordering a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the employee's duties and responsibilities as of the date the vote was taken to determine if she should be excluded under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit consisting solely of full-time meat department employees at the respondent's retail food store.

The respondent argued that the appropriate unit should include all full-time store employees to avoid undue fragmentation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the union had an established history of representing meat department employees, satisfying the conditions for a craft unit under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board deemed the meat department unit appropriate and, by agreement of the parties, included full-time deli section employees.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union violated its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act regarding his discharge grievance arbitration.

The complainant, who was discharged for theft, argued that the union representative did not properly represent him and that he should have been provided with legal counsel.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union representative was experienced, had prepared a strategy focusing on rehabilitation, and that the union was under no obligation to retain a lawyer for the arbitration.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent sheet metal workers employed by the respondent.

The respondent requested a hearing, arguing the application was unjustified because it only briefly employed two sheet metal workers due to singular circumstances and did not intend to do so again.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to hold a hearing, finding that the duration or likelihood of future employment is irrelevant to the statutory requirements for certification in the construction industry.

The Board determined it could decide the application based on the materials filed.

The applicant union applied for certification for a unit of construction labourers employed by the respondent.

A group of objecting employees filed a petition opposing the certification.

The Board found that the petition was not a voluntary statement of desire, as it was circulated by an employee during working hours and signed by a foreman who directed another employee to sign it.

Given the perceived management involvement, the Board declined to order a representation vote and granted the certification based on the union's membership evidence.

During an inquiry into the composition of a bargaining unit, the respondent requested that the Board direct the Labour Relations Officer to permit evidence of employee activities prior to the application date, or convene a hearing on the matter.

The Board denied the request, finding that Board Practice Note #4 provides an adequate mechanism for dealing with the concerns and that the appropriate time to address such evidentiary matters is after receiving the Officer's report.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether an individual was an 'employee' or excluded due to managerial functions.

The respondent employer argued the Board should decline to inquire because the union had agreed to exclude the individual during the prior certification proceeding.

The Board held that omitting an individual from the employer's schedules does not constitute a binding agreement on their employee status.

Finding no clear agreement that the individual exercised managerial functions, the Board appointed a Board Officer to inquire into the individual's duties and responsibilities.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent A. J. MacKinnon & Associates argued it was not the employer of the affected employees.

The Board added Angus J. MacKinnon Consultants Limited as a respondent and declared the two entities one employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that Consultants, acting as a construction manager, exercised fundamental control over the casual labourers' working lives, including hiring, firing, and directing their day-to-day work.

Consequently, the Board determined that Consultants was the employer for the purposes of the application.

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

The parties agreed to two bargaining units, but one unit contained only a single employee.

The Board noted it cannot certify a unit of one employee under s. 6(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

To preserve all options for the post-vote hearing, the Board struck a single, broad voting constituency encompassing both proposed units and directed that all ballots be segregated.

The Board also dismissed the employer's preliminary objection regarding the incumbent union's failure to bargain, noting no s. 59(2) declaration had been made, and deferred a timeliness objection to the post-vote hearing.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a unit of carpenters employed by the respondent.

The intervener trade union sought to participate, arguing it already represented the employees under existing collective agreements or, alternatively, had membership evidence for at least one affected employee.

The Board found the existing agreements did not cover carpenters but granted the intervener status based on membership evidence filed at the hearing.

The Board also held the respondent could not resile from a prior written agreement with the applicant regarding the list of employees in the bargaining unit, though the intervener remained free to challenge the list.

The union applied for certification for a construction industry bargaining unit.

The employer argued the unit should only include plumbers, not steamfitters, as it only employed plumbers.

The Board granted the standard craft unit which includes both.

Although the union filed sufficient membership evidence for automatic certification, two employees filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging they were intimidated by union supporters when trying to circulate a statement of desire opposing the union.

The Board found that the intimidation stopped the circulation of the statement of desire and the union failed to address the improper conduct.

Consequently, the Board exercised its discretion to order a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, arguing the union should be certified outright.