Employment and Labour Law

The applicant employee filed an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights on the same day a conciliation officer was appointed.

The union argued the application was untimely and that the applicant lacked status as an employee because he had not paid union dues.

The Board held the application was timely because it was not made 'after' the date the conciliation officer was appointed.

The Board also found the applicant remained an employee in the bargaining unit because, although he failed to pay dues, the union had not required his discharge under the collective agreement.

Finally, the Board concluded the petition opposing the union was voluntary and directed a representation vote.

The complainants, operators of a newsprint mill, filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the assignment of repair and maintenance work on a new computer technology system (the Moore Mycro Stock Proportioning System).

The work was assigned to instrument mechanics represented by Local 89, which was challenged by maintenance electricians represented by Local 1149.

The Board applied established criteria for resolving jurisdictional disputes, including employer preference, employer practice, collective bargaining relationships, skill and training, and economy and efficiency.

Finding that the system was primarily for process control rather than motor control, and that instrument mechanics possessed the necessary specialized training and experience, the Board directed that the work continue to be assigned to Local 89.

The union filed a grievance claiming that its members were entitled to a travel allowance under the provincial collective agreement when dispatched to the employer's fabrication shop, which was located outside the travel-free zone.

The employer argued that the collective agreement did not apply to its shop operations, which it characterized as manufacturing rather than construction.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement distinguished between job sites and shops, and that the travel allowance provision was not intended to apply to tradesmen dispatched to a permanent shop.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to process a grievance regarding unpaid gratuities.

The union was subsequently decertified.

The Board found that the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith prior to its decertification.

Furthermore, the Board held that the duty of fair representation under section 68 ceases entirely once a union is decertified, even for matters that arose prior to decertification.

The complaint was dismissed.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint and an application for first contract arbitration after the employer, a boarding school, proposed a "notional recall" of striking teachers as a condition of settlement.

The proposal would have paid a select group of teachers but kept replacement workers in the classrooms until the end of the school year, excluding key union organizers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's proposal was deliberately obstructive, lacked reasonable justification, and was motivated by a desire to avoid concluding a collective agreement and returning union supporters to work.

The Board held that the employer violated sections 15, 66, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act, directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration, and ordered the immediate reinstatement of the excluded union organizers.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit of construction industry employees of the respondent.

One employee filed a statement in opposition to the application but failed to attend the continuation of the hearing as a party.

The Board declined to give any weight to the employee's statement due to the lack of evidence regarding its origination.

Finding that the union had the requisite membership support, the Board granted the application and issued the appropriate certificates.

The applicant sought to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union, which had been obtained through a voluntary recognition agreement in the construction industry.

The union argued the application was untimely under section 123(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that section 123(2) provides an additional open period for termination applications in the construction industry, rather than overriding the general open period in section 57(2).

Therefore, the application brought during the last two months of the collective agreement's operation was timely.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The respondent and intervener claimed the application was untimely due to a prior voluntary recognition agreement.

Neither the respondent nor the intervener appeared at the hearing.

The Board treated the application as including a request under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act to declare the prior agreement invalid.

Finding no evidence to support the intervener's entitlement to represent the employees at the time the agreement was made, the Board declared the agreement invalid, found the certification application timely, and issued the requested certificates.

The parties settled unfair labour practice complaints prior to the scheduled hearing and requested the Board to issue their Minutes of Settlement as an Order of the Board and remain seized of its implementation.

The Board declined to issue an order, noting the settlement did not specify what order was requested or the basis for it.

The Board also declined to remain seized, advising the parties that the settlement is binding and enforceable pursuant to subsection 89(7) of the Labour Relations Act.

The complaints were ordered terminated one year from the date of the decision.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description but disputed whether seven drivers were employees or independent contractors.

The Board appointed a Board Officer to inquire into the status of the drivers.

As the union had sufficient membership support regardless of the drivers' status, the Board issued an interim certificate under section 6(2) of the Labour Relations Act, reserving the final certificate until the bargaining unit composition was resolved.

Following a representation vote for union certification, the parties disputed whether five lead hands exercised managerial functions under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act and whether two ballots were spoiled.

The Board found that four of the lead hands exercised only minor supervisory functions without effective control over the employment relationship and were included in the bargaining unit.

One lead hand, who had authority to discipline and suspend employees without prior consultation, was found to exercise managerial functions and was excluded.

The Board also upheld the Returning Officer's ruling that two ambiguously marked ballots were spoiled and should not be counted.

The union applied for certification of a unit of sheet metal workers in the construction industry.

The Board excluded two individuals from the bargaining unit because they were not lawfully engaged in the compulsory certified trade of sheet metal worker under the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification Act.

The Board also declined to give weight to an employee petition opposing certification, finding that the working foreman who circulated it made statements that would give employees reasonable cause to fear employer reprisal.

As the union had the support of more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the unit, the Board issued certificates to the union.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by communicating directly with striking employees, closing its manufacturing operations, and advertising for replacement workers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's November letters to individual employees, which offered re-employment and circumvented the union, constituted a failure to bargain in good faith and unlawful interference with the union.

However, the Board dismissed the allegations regarding the closure of the manufacturing operations, finding that the decision was motivated by bona fide business reasons and not anti-union animus.

The Board ordered the employer to cease bargaining directly with employees and to post a notice of its violations.

The complainant requested reconsideration of a prior decision, asking the Board to provide written reasons for oral rulings made during the hearing.

The Board denied the request, noting that the rulings had no bearing on the final decision, which ultimately found in the complainant's favour regarding the respondent's breach of the Labour Relations Act.

Providing written reasons would serve no purpose.

The complainant, a youth services officer at a secured custody facility, refused a directive to move to another house during his shift, citing health and safety concerns for the remaining staff due to reduced staffing levels.

He was sent home without pay for the remainder of his shift and issued a letter of reprimand.

He filed a complaint alleging the employer's discipline violated section 24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the complainant's actions constituted insubordination rather than protected compliance with the Act, as section 23(1)(c) explicitly excludes correctional facility workers from the right to refuse unsafe work.

The Board also declined to substitute a different penalty under section 24(7).

The applicant employee association applied for certification.

The intervener union challenged the application, alleging improprieties in the membership evidence and the Form 9 declaration, as well as employer interference.

The Board found that the Form 9 declarant did not make the necessary reasonable inquiries and that the amended Form 9 contained material misrepresentations regarding the collection of membership cards and fees.

Consequently, the Board rejected the Form 9 declarations as improper and unreliable.

Without a valid Form 9, the membership evidence was given no weight, and the application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification and a pre-hearing representation vote was held, resulting in a tie.

One segregated ballot was cast by an employee whose inclusion in the bargaining unit was initially challenged by the union but supported by the employer.

Before a Labour Relations Officer could inquire into the employee's duties, the union withdrew its challenge, but the employer simultaneously sought to change its position to exclude the employee.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that a party may not raise new challenges to the composition of the bargaining unit after the vote has been counted, as this would encourage gerrymandering.

The employee was included in the unit, but because counting his single segregated ballot would reveal his preference, the Board directed the taking of a second representation vote.

The respondent employer requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsider its decision finding that construction inspectors were employees and not excluded by reason of exercising managerial functions.

The employer argued that the Board ignored compelling evidence and that the 14-month delay in issuing the decision prejudiced its expectations.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no new evidence was adduced, no error in its holistic assessment of the evidence, and that delay alone does not justify reconsideration, especially where it would prejudice the union's representation rights.

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

The union argued that the employer failed to make reasonable or expeditious efforts to conclude a collective agreement.

The Board found that the employer's conduct, including refusing to present a monetary package, sending ill-prepared negotiators without authority, and reneging on previous proposals, demonstrated a failure to make reasonable or expeditious efforts.

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

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the corporate employer and its two directing minds, alleging breaches of the Labour Relations Act for refusing to pay previously ordered compensation and refusing to deduct and remit union dues.

The Board found that both the corporation and the individual respondents breached sections 64, 66, and 70 of the Act.

The Board held that individual officers can be held personally liable under these sections.

However, due to the union's significant delay in bringing the complaint regarding the 1985 compensation negotiations, the Board declined to order a remedy for those breaches.

The Board did find the respondents liable for the recent failure to deduct and remit union dues and scheduled a hearing to determine the appropriate remedy.