Employment and Labour Law

The complainant union alleged that the respondents, Chinook Chemicals Company and G. Lemaire, violated the Labour Relations Act by depriving a truck driver of employment because of his union support.

Lemaire, an owner-operator who leased his truck to Chinook, took over driving his truck full-time from the complainant's member shortly before a union ratification vote.

The Board found that Chinook did not violate the Act as it merely acquiesced to Lemaire's lawful exercise of his right to drive his own truck.

The Board further held that even if Lemaire's statements to the driver constituted intimidation under section 70, the requested remedy of reinstatement was inappropriate because Lemaire had a lawful right to resume driving his truck.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union sought certification for various groups of employees of the respondent construction contractor.

The Board resolved challenges to the bargaining unit descriptions and employee lists.

The Board found that the Asphalt Plant Foreman did not exercise managerial functions and was an employee within the bargaining unit.

The Board also determined that three challenged drivers belonged to a different bargaining unit based on where they reported to work.

The Board concluded that more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant.

The applicant union filed an application under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine the employee status of an individual.

The respondent employer objected to the appointment of a Board Officer on the basis that the individual had been terminated for alleged theft prior to the filing of the application.

The Board held that since the individual was not employed by the respondent at the time the application was filed, there was no current question as to whether the person was an employee.

The Board cancelled the Board Officer's appointment and adjourned the matter sine die for one year, pending the resolution of the individual's employment status through adjudication or negotiation.

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

The union alleged that the respondent private school failed to make reasonable or expeditious efforts to conclude an agreement and adopted uncompromising bargaining positions without reasonable justification regarding management rights, seniority, and layoffs.

The Board found that while the bargaining process was unsuccessful, the respondent had reasonable justification for its positions, given its financial deficit, declining enrolment, and the need to remain competitive with other private schools.

The application was dismissed, with one Board member dissenting.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The employer objected that the application was untimely because the intervener union failed to commence bargaining within sixty days of giving notice to bargain, which the employer argued continued the collective agreement.

The Board found the notice to bargain was valid and terminated the agreement, making the application timely.

The Board also determined that a single bargaining unit encompassing both plant and office employees was appropriate given the small number of employees, departing from its normal practice of separating them.

The Board directed the counting of the segregated ballots.

The intervener, Local 293, requested reconsideration of a Board decision directing that the name of Local 1230-10 appear on a pre-hearing representation vote ballot instead of Local 293.

Local 293 argued it was the incumbent union and that an agreement existed to place its name on the ballot.

The Board dismissed the request, noting that pre-hearing votes are designed to be expeditious and that holding a hearing prior to the vote would defeat this purpose.

The Board concluded that the applicant's position regarding the ballot structure should be favoured given the risks involved, and that the successor rights dispute between the locals would be determined after the vote.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties agreed on the list of employees and their last day of work, but disputed whether membership cards signed by two permanently laid-off individuals after their last day worked should be counted.

As there were no facts in dispute, the Board directed the parties to file written submissions on the issue rather than convening a hearing.

The complainant sought to reopen two complaints regarding union financial statements that had been previously settled and withdrawn.

The complainant argued that the financial statements provided under the settlement were prepared by a Certified General Accountant rather than a Chartered Accountant.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the request, finding that the complainant was aware of the accountant's qualifications when signing the settlement and that the Act does not require a Chartered Accountant unless directed by the Board.

The Board emphasized the importance of finality in settlements.

In an application for termination of bargaining rights, a representation vote was held.

Two issues arose regarding the vote: the eligibility of a retired employee who was using up vacation credits, and whether the applicant, who missed the vote due to a serious car accident, should be allowed to cast a late ballot.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the retired employee was ineligible to vote because she was not performing work on the relevant dates.

The Board also declined to afford the applicant another opportunity to vote, emphasizing the need for certainty and expedition in representation matters.

The Board directed that the remaining ballots be counted.

The applicant trade union sought certification for a bargaining unit consisting of all occasional teachers in the respondent's secondary panel in the Regional Municipality of Peel.

The respondent disputed the composition of the bargaining unit, arguing against the separation of secondary and elementary panel occasional teachers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that the secondary panel occasional teachers constituted an appropriate bargaining unit, consistent with its established practice of mirroring the historical dichotomy between elementary and secondary school teachers.

A pre-hearing representation vote resulted in more than fifty percent of the ballots cast in favour of the applicant, and the Board directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The Operative Plasterers' and Cement Masons International Association, Local 598 requested that the Board reconsider a previous decision granting certificates to the applicant union, alleging it was the true bargaining agent due to a sale of business or related employer status.

Local 598 also requested that its letter be treated as an application under sections 1(4) and 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board directed the Registrar to schedule a hearing for the reconsideration request but declined to accept the letter as a formal application under sections 1(4) or 63, noting that the Board's Rules of Procedure require such applications to be made in specific forms with sufficient particulars.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to displace the incumbent union representing the respondent's woods operations employees.

Following a pre-hearing representation vote where more than fifty percent of ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no party requesting a hearing, the Ontario Labour Relations Board disposed of the application on the materials.

The Board adopted the voting constituency as the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The union grieved the employer's refusal to hire a tradesman referred to its Darlington generating station.

The grievor had previously been discharged by the employer for poor performance, but the employer failed to notify him at the time of discharge that he was ineligible for rehire, contrary to its own policy.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's delay in advising the grievor of his no-rehire status was unreasonable and breached the collective agreement.

The Board directed the employer to hire the grievor and pay him two months' compensation.

The complainants, academic employees at Sheridan College, alleged that their union (OPSEU) breached its duty of fair representation under section 76 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act during the 1984 negotiations.

They claimed the union bargained in bad faith with the employer and intentionally misled the membership regarding its bargaining demands, specifically concerning a workload formula, to precipitate a strike.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint.

The Board held that employees lack status to enforce the union's duty to bargain in good faith with the employer.

Furthermore, the Board found that the union's bargaining tactics, including its refusal to receive a late offer from the employer to avoid triggering a mandatory vote that would disrupt a scheduled strike vote, did not constitute arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct toward the employees.

The Board also concluded that the union's communications with the membership did not amount to fundamental misrepresentation.

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

The applicant submitted a petition signed by a sufficient number of employees.

The Board inquired into the voluntariness of the petition.

The applicant, a former supervisor who retained a close relationship with management, circulated the petition.

The Board found that employees would reasonably perceive the applicant as closely associated with management and might fear that management would learn whether they signed.

Given this perception, the unusual lack of discussion before signing, and the applicant's unreliable testimony, the Board concluded the applicant failed to prove the petition represented the voluntary wishes of the employees.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant employer applied under section 59 of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration terminating the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union had served a notice to bargain but failed to commence negotiations for approximately twelve months, offering no valid explanation other than having forgotten about the bargaining unit.

The Board found that the union had slept on its bargaining rights without reasonable excuse, prejudicing the employees.

The Board ordered a representation vote to determine if the employees still desired to be represented by the union.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether four individuals were employees.

The respondent employer argued the application should be dismissed without a hearing on the merits because the parties had previously agreed during a certification application that the individuals exercised managerial functions and were excluded from the bargaining unit.

The union contended the agreement was only for the purposes of the count.

The Board found that the prior decision recorded an agreement on employee status, which triggered the Westmount Hospital policy restricting subsequent applications.

The Board declined to go behind the prior decision and dismissed the application.

The employer filed an unfair labour practice complaint and an application for consent to prosecute the union and its counsel, alleging they misled an arbitrator to obtain an adjournment.

The employer sought to consolidate these matters with earlier complaints filed by the union.

The Board refused consolidation, noting the matters were discrete and consolidation would conflict with the union counsel's role.

The Board then dismissed the employer's complaint and application without a full hearing, finding them to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process designed to harass the union and gain a tactical advantage in other pending matters.

The applicant union sought a direction under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act allowing access to the employer's property to organize employees.

The employer and the incumbent union opposed the order.

The Board adjourned the hearing to be heard alongside a similar application by another rival union.

The Board also denied the incumbent union's request to intervene, finding that an access order would not detrimentally affect its legal rights.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit consisting solely of employees at the respondent's Plastics plant.

The respondent argued that the appropriate unit should also include employees at its nearby Films plant.

The Board applied the Usarco criteria and found a substantial community of interest between the two plants, noting similar skills, identical wage structures, and a single personnel department.

The Board concluded that a single-plant unit would result in undue fragmentation and determined that the broader municipal-wide unit was appropriate.

As the union did not have the requisite support in the broader unit, the application was dismissed.