Employment and Labour Law

The applicant union requested the Board to issue an arrest warrant for a witness, Manuel Araujo, who had previously failed to attend a hearing and could not be located by the Sheriff.

The applicant provided a new address for the witness.

The Board issued an arrest warrant requiring the witness's attendance at the continuation of the hearing.

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

The parties disputed whether part-time employees should be excluded from the unit and whether the respondent's operation was excluded from the Labour Relations Act as an agricultural or horticultural enterprise under sections 2(b) or 2(c).

The Board found that the respondent had an established practice of hiring part-time employees during its peak season, warranting their exclusion from the bargaining unit.

Furthermore, the Board determined that the respondent's business of processing natural products into soil for the home garden market was a commercial enterprise, not agriculture or horticulture.

The Board directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer terminated an agency worker for signing a union card, instituted a new check-in procedure during the statutory freeze period, and failed to pay conduct money to summonsed witnesses.

The employer failed to attend the hearing.

The Board found the agency worker was an employee in substance and that her termination violated the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also found the new check-in procedure violated the statutory freeze and ordered the employer to pay the outstanding conduct money to prevent an abuse of process.

The employer was ordered to reinstate the worker, compensate her, and post a notice of its violations.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of objecting employees filed petition cards expressing opposition to the union.

The union challenged the voluntariness of these petition cards, arguing they were tainted by an earlier petition circulated in circumstances that might have created a perception of management involvement.

The majority of the Board found that the employer's behaviour was restrained and there was no evidence of management involvement in the origination or circulation of the petitions.

The Board concluded the petition cards represented a voluntary expression of employee wishes and directed a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, finding the second petition tainted by the flaws of the first.

The applicant union sought certification for construction labourers employed by the respondent.

The respondent argued the work fell under federal jurisdiction because it involved monitoring vibrations near a federal pipeline.

The Board found that the work was integral to the construction of a provincial telecommunications cable, not the ongoing operation of the federal pipeline, and thus fell within provincial jurisdiction.

The Board also determined that the employees were engaged in the construction industry and were properly classified as construction labourers, as their work was commonly associated with blasting.

The Christian Labour Association of Canada (CLAC) applied for certification to displace the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 562, as the bargaining agent for sheet metal workers employed by Reitzel Heating & Sheet Metal Ltd. The central issue was the appropriate bargaining unit description in a displacement application where the incumbent held province-wide ICI bargaining rights but the applicant was not an affiliated bargaining agent.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that CLAC could not acquire province-wide bargaining rights, nor was it required to take an 'all trades' unit.

The Board held that the appropriate bargaining unit was limited to sheet metal workers and apprentices in the ICI sector in Board Area 6, balancing the statutory scheme of province-wide bargaining with the employees' right to choose their bargaining agent.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer.

During the union's organizing campaign, the employer announced new benefits, supported the formation of an in-plant employee committee, held captive audience meetings where the general manager claimed he was 'stabbed in the back', supported an anti-union petition, and failed to recall a union supporter from lay-off.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer committed multiple violations of sections 64, 66, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

Given the cumulative effect of these unfair labour practices, the Board concluded that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained in a representation vote.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 8 of the Act to certify the union without a vote and ordered remedial measures, including a posting and compensation for the un-recalled employee.

In an application for certification in the construction industry, the Board determined the composition of the bargaining unit by resolving disputes over whether certain individuals were performing bargaining unit work or exercised managerial functions under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that some working foremen exercised managerial functions and were excluded, while others did not and were included.

The Board directed the matter to be listed for a continuation of hearing to address the origination and circulation of documents filed in opposition to the application.

During a consolidated hearing for union certification and an unfair labour practice complaint, the Ontario Labour Relations Board made several preliminary rulings.

The Board refused to exclude part-time employees and students from the bargaining unit, noting the employer had no history of employing them, despite the plant having only been open for a few months.

The Board also included quality control employees in the unit, finding they shared a community of interest with production employees.

Over the union's objection, the Board ordered the disclosure of the membership card count to ensure all parties understood the case to be met.

Finally, the Board directed the employer to call its evidence first, followed by the objecting employees, and then the union.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent carpenters and carpenters' apprentices employed by the respondents.

The respondents and interveners argued that the employees were already covered by existing collective agreements (the MTABA Agreement and the Ellis-Don Agreement) and that the applicant should not be permitted to carve out its craft from the existing bargaining units.

The Board found that the MTABA and Ellis-Don Agreements did not cover carpenters or carpenters' apprentices, denying status to the MTABA and limiting the status of Local 183.

The Board further held that, consistent with the craft-oriented nature of the construction industry and the provisions of the Labour Relations Act, the applicant was permitted to carve out its craft from the existing Form Work style agreement.

The Board defined the appropriate bargaining units and directed further hearings for the remaining issues.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent electricians and electricians' apprentices employed by the respondent in the construction industry.

The parties disagreed on whether the bargaining unit description should include the word 'registered' and whether two specific individuals should be included in the employee list.

The Board determined that the bargaining unit should be described without the word 'registered', consistent with its general practice and the relevant designation order.

The Board found it unnecessary to resolve the dispute over the two individuals because the union had more than 55% membership support regardless of their inclusion.

Certificates were issued to the applicant.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the duty to bargain in good faith by refusing to negotiate pension issues separately from a joint union committee.

The employer argued the union had irrevocably ceded its right to bargain pensions separately by participating in the joint committee in previous rounds.

The Board held that the union was entitled to unilaterally withdraw from the joint committee with adequate notice.

The employer violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by pressing its demand for joint bargaining to impasse and refusing to receive the union's pension proposals.

However, the employer's direct communications with employees regarding its bargaining position were found to be permissible.

The complainant alleged under section 85(2) of the Labour Relations Act that the union's audited financial statements were inadequate because they were prepared by a Certified General Accountant (C.G.A.) rather than a Chartered Accountant, and lacked sufficient detail.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the Act does not require an audit to be performed by a Chartered Accountant.

The Board accepted the uncontradicted evidence that the statements were prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and that a proper audit was conducted.

The applicant, Local 594, sought a declaration under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent, Local 586, had not acquired its bargaining rights following a merger ordered by the International President of the IBEW.

Local 594 argued that a merger could not be effected without a vote of its members.

The majority of the Board dismissed the application, finding that the merger was carried out in accordance with the union's constitution and that the Board's role under section 62 is to ensure constitutional provisions were followed, not to require a membership vote.

A dissenting member would have required a representation vote for non-ICI sector bargaining rights.

The union grieved the employer's refusal to rehire a fully qualified tradesman who had been properly referred through the union hiring hall.

The employer refused to rehire the grievor solely because he had failed to reimburse the employer $46.00 for a lost welding jacket from a previous period of employment.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the collective agreement did not give the employer an unfettered right to reject rehires, but only a right to reject based on competency or qualifications.

Even if an implied residual discretion existed, the employer acted unreasonably by using the hiring hall referral mechanism to unilaterally enforce a debt collection, contrary to the policy against unilateral wage deductions reflected in the Employment Standards Act.

The grievance was allowed and compensation ordered.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine the employee status of a yard foreman.

The respondent employer argued the individual exercised managerial functions under section 1(3)(b) and should be excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board reviewed the individual's duties, noting he had no subordinates during the winter and only seasonal workers during the summer, with limited independent decision-making authority.

The Board concluded the individual did not exercise managerial functions and was an employee within the meaning of the Act.

The applicant union applied for certification for employees of the respondent food service company in Chatham.

The parties disputed the geographic scope of the bargaining unit: the union sought a municipal-wide unit, while the employer argued for a client-specific unit limited to its operation at Eaton Yale.

The Board found that the employer's operations and terms of employment varied significantly depending on the client's needs, and that client-specific units were the norm in the non-vending food service industry.

The Board concluded that a municipal-wide unit would place undue strain on collective bargaining and determined that client-specific units were appropriate.

Certificates were issued for full-time and part-time units at the Eaton Yale location.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent occasional teachers employed by the respondent school board and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The Board directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be taken, as it appeared that not less than thirty-five percent of the employees in the voting constituency were members of the applicant.

The Board also addressed the test for determining voter eligibility for occasional teachers and deferred the issue of whether this application was a subsequent application under subsection 103(3) of the Labour Relations Act to the panel dealing with an earlier application.

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

The parties agreed on a bargaining unit description but disputed the inclusion of numerous individuals.

The applicant also requested that the respondent provide a list of employee names and addresses, which the Board denied because the request was not raised at the prior Officer's meeting.

Finding an appearance of sufficient support, the Board directed the taking of a pre-hearing representation vote, with disputed individuals permitted to cast segregated ballots.

The applicant union sought certification for employees of the respondent, an employer in the construction industry.

Both parties agreed that the appropriate bargaining unit should be described as 'all employees' rather than limited to specific trades on the date of application.

The Board noted its usual practice of restricting construction industry units to specific trades to avoid jurisdictional disputes.

However, because the employees performed both construction and non-construction work, the Board found that an 'all employees' unit was appropriate to prevent fragmentation and disruption.

The Board also accepted the parties' agreement to use the phrase 'at and out of' Bowmanville, given that employees worked at various job sites.

Finding that more than 55% of the employees were union members, the Board granted the application and issued a certificate.