Employment and Labour Law

The complainant, a former Dominion store employee, alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by withdrawing his lay-off grievance.

The withdrawal was part of a complex global settlement negotiated by the union following the conversion of Dominion stores to Mr. Grocer franchises.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union balanced competing interests and made a reasonable decision to abandon certain grievances to secure a settlement, which did not constitute arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.

The complainant, a part-time employee, was discharged after refusing to clean an employee washroom, claiming the smell would make him sick.

A grievance was filed and subsequently settled, with the complainant reinstated with seniority but without compensation.

Two months later, the complainant filed a complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) seeking lost earnings.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the OHSA complaint, finding that under section 24(2) of the OHSA, a worker must elect to proceed either before the Board or under the collective agreement.

Having elected to utilize the grievance procedure and having consented to a settlement, the complainant could not relitigate the propriety of his discharge before the Board.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board challenging a three-week suspension imposed on the grievor for insubordination and the use of abusive language towards management.

The employer relied on the culminating incident and several past incidents to justify the penalty.

The Board found that the employer improperly relied on past incidents that did not form part of the grievor's formal disciplinary record.

However, given the grievor's two prior written warnings and the severity of his insubordination, the Board exercised its discretion under section 44(9) of the Labour Relations Act to substitute a ten-day suspension for the original three-week penalty.

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

The parties had reached an impasse over the employer's insistence on a clause allowing it to discharge employees without just cause upon payment of severance.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's position was uncompromising and without reasonable justification, as it undermined the fundamental job security typically provided by a collective agreement.

The Board also dismissed the employer's arguments that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights and lacked standing, finding that a valid union merger had occurred.

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

The applicant union sought reconsideration and a stay of a previous Board decision that found it was an affiliated bargaining agent not entitled to represent construction labourers in the ICI sector.

The applicant argued the decision disrupted historic bargaining patterns and requested a stay pending a potential ministerial amendment to the designation orders.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify a stay and noting that the power of reconsideration does not require the original panel, but the applicant failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the original decision was wrong.

The union applied for certification and won a pre-hearing representation vote by a margin of one ballot.

The employer filed an untimely objection, arguing the vote should be set aside because a union supporter incorrectly told an eligible employee he could not vote, and that employee did not vote.

The Board dismissed the objection, finding the employer failed to meet the reasonable diligence test for extending the time limit.

The Board further noted that even if timely, the objection would fail because the employee had adequate official notice of his right to vote and the means to clarify his eligibility.

A certificate was issued to the union.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union in 1984 regarding events from 1983.

After initial proceedings and adjournments in 1985, the complainant took no further steps for almost two years.

The respondent union requested that the complaint be dismissed for delay.

The Board declined to entertain the complaint due to the extreme and unexplained delay of almost two years since the last proceeding, bringing the total time elapsed since the events to almost four years.

The union filed complaints alleging the employer violated the statutory freeze provisions of section 79 of the Labour Relations Act.

Following the union's application for certification, the employer, which had recently been acquired by a new parent company, unilaterally changed the date of the annual wage increase, cancelled an existing profit-sharing plan, implemented a new incentive plan for only a portion of the bargaining unit, and lowered starting rates for certain classifications.

The Board applied the 'reasonable expectations' test and found that the employer's actions violated the statutory freeze, as employees reasonably expected the continuation of uniform treatment, the profit-sharing plan, and the historical timing of wage increases.

The Board deferred remedial orders to allow the parties to negotiate a resolution.

The complainant, a taxi driver, filed complaints alleging that the respondent employer breached the statutory freeze provisions of section 79 of the Labour Relations Act by increasing taxi rentals after a union applied for certification.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the complainant lacked standing.

The Board held that the statutory freeze protects the rights of the trade union, not individual employees, and therefore only the trade union has standing to bring a complaint under section 79.

The complaints were dismissed.

The applicant union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a request for reconsideration of a Board decision that had issued two certificates to the union.

The union argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction to reconsider its decision or, alternatively, should exercise its discretion to refuse the request.

The Board dismissed the preliminary motion, finding that section 106(1) of the Labour Relations Act grants it broad jurisdiction to reconsider any decision.

The Board held that the union's arguments regarding reliance and finality went to the exercise of the Board's discretion, which should only be determined after a full hearing on the merits of the reconsideration request.

The complainant union filed a complaint alleging contraventions of the Labour Relations Act.

The central issue was whether the union had abandoned its bargaining rights for part-time employees.

Although the original 1974 certificate and successive collective agreements did not explicitly exclude part-time employees, the collective agreement had never been applied to them.

The union had not collected dues from part-time employees or applied seniority, grievance, or health and welfare provisions to them.

The Board found that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights for part-time employees through disuse and failure to assert those rights over many years.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent construction labourers employed by the respondent in the ICI sector province-wide and in all other sectors in Board Area 5.

The respondent argued that because it employed construction labourers in Board Area 8, the union was required under section 144(1) of the Labour Relations Act to include those employees in its proposed bargaining unit.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that section 144(1) permits but does not require a union to apply for more than one geographic area.

The Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and referred disputes over the inclusion of specific individuals to a Labour Relations Officer.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of construction labourers, including surveyors, employed by the respondent in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry.

The Board dismissed the intervention of another union for lack of status.

The Board found that the applicant did not have an established trade union practice of representing surveyors in the construction industry, whereas the intervener had a history of such representation and was the designated employee bargaining agency for surveyors.

The Board concluded it could not determine an appropriate bargaining unit that included trades other than those contained in the applicant's designation order, and dismissed the application.

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

The respondent argued that the application should be treated under the general provisions of the Labour Relations Act rather than the construction industry provisions, as it primarily operated a custom steel fabricating shop and only one employee performed on-site installation full-time.

The Board found that the respondent operated a business in the construction industry and that the shop employees regularly spent a significant portion of their time doing on-site construction work.

The Board concluded that the employees were commonly associated in their work with the on-site employee and were properly included in the construction bargaining unit.

As the applicant had the requisite membership support, the Board directed that certificates issue.

The complainant Carpenters union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding house framing work assigned to a subcontractor.

The respondent Labourers union and the intervener argued the Board should refuse to entertain the complaint, asserting it was an abuse of process and essentially a representational dispute over bargaining rights rather than a true work assignment dispute.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to refuse the complaint, finding that the representational aspects of the dispute and the abuse of process allegations were matters better addressed when hearing the merits of the complaint.

The complainant, an employee of Camco Inc., was discharged following a workplace altercation with another employee.

The union filed a grievance but ultimately decided not to refer it to arbitration, relying on information volunteered by three employees that supported the other employee's version of events.

The complainant alleged the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the union's investigation was inadequate and perfunctory, particularly given the serious nature of a discharge grievance and the union's failure to interview witnesses identified by the complainant.

The Board concluded the union acted arbitrarily and directed that the grievance be referred to arbitration.

The complainants filed a work assignment complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the installation of metal stamping presses.

At the hearing, the complainants amended their request, seeking only a declaration for educational purposes rather than an assignment of the work.

The Board exercised its discretion under subsection 91(1) not to inquire into the complaint, finding that a purely academic declaration would serve no labour relations purpose.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union sought a declaration that Stucor Construction Ltd. was bound to the Operating Engineers Provincial Agreement as a result of a sale of a business from Stewart & Hinan Contractors Limited, or alternatively, that the entities were related employers.

The predecessor business was liquidated when one partner retired, and the remaining partner started a new, smaller general contracting business (Stucor) using some of the predecessor's assets, key management personnel, and its name.

The Board found that the transfer of management skills, expertise, and some physical assets constituted a sale of part of a business within the meaning of section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

Stucor was declared bound by the collective agreement.

The applicant union sought reconsideration of a Board decision that found the employer violated subcontracting provisions but awarded no damages because the union failed to prove any loss.

The union argued the Board ignored evidence of available subcontractors and erred in law by requiring proof of loss.

The Board dismissed the application, noting the union's evidence of loss was based entirely on hearsay and that the Board's jurisdiction under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act is compensatory, not punitive.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent, an employer engaged in the fabrication and erection of structural steel.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing that because it operates in the construction industry, only a trade union pertaining to the construction industry under section 117(f) of the Labour Relations Act could apply.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that while the respondent and its employees fall within the construction industry provisions, section 144(5) and the general provisions of the Act permit a non-construction trade union to apply for certification outside the province-wide bargaining scheme.