Employment and Labour Law

The applicants filed applications for certification regarding masonry workers constructing an extension to the respondent's motel.

The respondent argued it was not the employer, claiming the workers were employed by an independent contractor, and alternatively that it did not operate a business in the construction industry.

The Board found that the purported contractor acted merely as the respondent's agent, making the respondent the true employer.

The Board further held that by undertaking the motel extension, the respondent was operating a business in the construction industry within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act.

The matter was referred for continuation of hearing on the remaining issue of whether the workers were independent contractors.

In a jurisdictional dispute under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act, the parties failed to file the required pre-hearing briefs and documentation as mandated by the Board's Rules of Procedure and Practice Note 15.

The Board expressed its dissatisfaction with the parties' disregard for the procedural rules, noting that such non-compliance wastes the Board's time and resources.

The Board emphasized that moving forward, strict adherence to the rules and practice notes will be expected to ensure the orderly and expeditious resolution of jurisdictional disputes.

The applicant union requested a pre-hearing representation vote in its application for certification.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to conduct a vote until it determined whether the respondent or the hospital was the true employer of the dietary staff.

The Board held that it is not required to resolve the identity of the employer before conducting a pre-hearing vote, as doing so would frustrate the purpose of the expedited vote procedure.

The Board directed that a vote be held among the agreed-upon voting constituency, with the ballot box to be sealed pending the resolution of the employer identity issue.

The complainant filed a section 89 complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to assist him when he was not selected for an equipment operator position.

The Board first considered whether the complainant, a temporary part-time labourer, was an employee in the bargaining unit.

Reviewing the collective agreement and the parties' past practice, the Board concluded that the complainant was not covered by the collective agreement and therefore the union owed him no duty under section 68.

The Board further noted that even if the complainant had status, the complaint would fail on the merits because the union's decision not to pursue the matter without further evidence of his qualifications was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer breached sections 50 and 67 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to hire him for a vacant position and by discussing the position directly with applicants.

The Board dismissed the allegations against the employer at the outset of the hearing.

The Board declined to entertain the section 50 complaint, deferring to the arbitration process since the allegations did not amount to a total repudiation of the collective agreement.

The Board also found that the employer's discussions with applicants did not constitute interference with the union's bargaining rights under section 67.

The hearing proceeded solely on the section 68 duty of fair representation complaint against the union.

The applicant union, Local 27, sought certification for carpenters employed by F.T. Construction Inc. and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer and Local 183.

Local 183 requested reconsideration of Local 27's certification, arguing it held a pre-existing collective agreement with the employer.

The Board found that the collective agreement between Local 183 and the employer's predecessor, Minho Carpentry, was the result of employer coercion and improper support, as employees were forced to join Local 183 to keep their jobs.

Consequently, the Board declared the agreement void under section 48(a) of the Labour Relations Act, held that Local 183 had no bargaining rights, and affirmed Local 27's certification.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for construction labourers employed by the respondent.

An intervener requested a hearing but failed to file documentary evidence or plead material facts as required by the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 102(14) of the Labour Relations Act to dispose of the application without a hearing.

Finding that the applicant had the requisite membership support, the Board issued certificates for the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector and all other sectors in the appropriate geographic areas.

The applicant, a former school custodian, applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination that he was an employee rather than an independent contractor.

The respondent union opposed the application, noting there was no dispute between the union and the employer regarding his status.

The Board dismissed the application, affirming previous jurisprudence that section 106(2) is intended only to resolve disputes between the immediate parties to a collective bargaining relationship, not to provide a forum for individual employees to question their status when the union and employer are in agreement.

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

The parties executed Minutes of Settlement in which the respondent acknowledged violating the collective agreement and agreed to pay $1,662.50.

The parties requested the Board to endorse the settlement and issue an order.

Relying on its previous jurisprudence, the Board declined to convert the general language of the settlement into specific orders, noting that parties must expressly agree on the particular declarations or orders sought.

The Board reproduced the settlement and terminated the proceedings.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of banquet department employees at the respondent hotel.

The applicant sought to exclude part-time employees and students from the unit, which the respondent opposed.

The Board found that the usual practice of separating full-time and part-time employees did not apply, as all banquet employees worked on an on-call basis, shared common terms and conditions, and formed a single amorphous group without a distinct division based on hours worked.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit without the requested exclusions and directed the matter to be listed for a further hearing on outstanding issues.

The applicant union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the application was barred by res judicata because a previous application between the same parties had been resolved.

The Board dismissed the objection, finding that the previous application had been converted to a general application by agreement, and therefore the Board had not determined whether the employer operated in the construction industry.

The parties agreed to exchange documents and scheduled further hearing dates to resolve the remaining issues.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The respondent employer argued that two employees were working illegally under the Immigration Act and should not be counted, and that the union's membership evidence was tainted by misrepresentation and intimidation.

The Board held that immigration status is irrelevant to employee status under the Labour Relations Act.

However, based on evidence that a union organizer threatened an employee with job loss if he did not join, the Board found sufficient doubt about the membership evidence to order a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, arguing that the employer's illegal conduct and the lack of employee complaints should have led to automatic certification.

The union applied for certification for employees at several branches of the respondent financial institution.

The union sought a multi-branch bargaining unit combining full-time and part-time employees, while the employer argued for single-branch units and the separation of full-time and part-time employees.

The Board determined that single-branch units were appropriate and maintained its practice of separating full-time and part-time employees.

Certificates were issued for units where the union had over 55% support, representation votes were ordered where support was between 45% and 55%, and the application was dismissed for units with less than 45% support.

The Carpenters' union filed unfair labour practice complaints against the Labourers' union and various employers, challenging subcontracting clauses in residential framing collective agreements.

The respondents moved to dismiss the complaints due to delay and abuse of process.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the Carpenters had delayed excessively in prosecuting the complaints, causing substantial prejudice to the respondents and striking at the heart of established bargaining relationships.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 89(4) of the Labour Relations Act to decline to inquire into the complaints and dismissed them.

The applicant union sought declarations under sections 1(4) and 63 of the Labour Relations Act against multiple corporate respondents.

At the hearing, the Board added several new respondents as requested by the applicant.

The Board granted an adjournment requested by some respondents and directed the applicant to provide full written particulars of the material facts and relief claimed against the newly added parties.

The Board noted that procedural fairness requires an applicant to provide written particulars rather than relying on verbal assertions.

A pre-hearing conference and hearing dates were scheduled.

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation applied for certification to represent a unit of psychologists, social workers, and other professionals employed by the Board of Education for the City of York, displacing the incumbent union.

The incumbent argued the applicant's constitution did not permit these employees into membership.

The Board found the applicant had an established practice of admitting such persons, satisfying the Labour Relations Act.

As the applicant demonstrated sufficient membership support, the Board ordered a representation vote between the applicant and the incumbent union.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of speech pathologists, psychologists, psychometrists, and social worker/attendance counsellors employed by the respondent school board.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description.

The Board considered whether a unit defined by specific job classifications was appropriate, noting its general aversion to fragmentation.

However, given the history of separate representation for such support personnel in the school board sector and the agreement of the parties, the Board found the proposed unit appropriate.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description and waived their right to a formal hearing, but disputed the employee status of six individuals.

The Board found that the union had sufficient membership support regardless of the status of the disputed individuals and issued a final certificate.

The Board declined the parties' request to appoint a Labour Relations Officer under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine the status of the six individuals, finding the request premature as bargaining had not yet commenced.

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

The respondent employer failed to file a reply and did not attend the hearing.

The Board found that the employer had refused to recognize the union's bargaining authority and failed to make reasonable efforts to conclude a collective agreement, as evidenced by the employer's explicit refusal to negotiate and failure to attend conciliation.

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

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent.

The respondent and the incumbent union (Intervener #1) argued the application was untimely under section 61(2) of the Labour Relations Act because a conciliation officer had been appointed.

The applicant argued the incumbent union had abandoned its bargaining rights through inaction, rendering the conciliation appointment a nullity.

The Board held that in the face of the clear wording of section 61(2), it would not go behind the conciliation appointment based on alleged de facto abandonment.

The application was dismissed as untimely.