Employment and Labour Law

In an application for certification, a representation vote was held.

The respondent employer and objecting employees sought a second vote, arguing that an employee who cast a ballot and resigned the following working day to take another job lacked sufficient interest in the bargaining unit.

The Board held that the employee was eligible to vote because she was employed on both the date the vote was ordered and the date it was taken.

The Board also declined a belated request by the objectors to redefine the bargaining unit to exclude engineering employees, noting the parties had previously agreed to their inclusion.

The union won the vote and a certificate was issued.

The applicant union applied for certification for employees of the respondent cleaning contractor.

The employer argued that the bargaining unit should be limited to a specific street location, while the union sought a municipal-wide unit.

The Board applied its usual practice and granted a municipal-wide unit, finding no compelling reason to depart from it despite the employer being in the contract cleaning industry.

The Board also dismissed the employer's allegations that the union intimidated employees or misrepresented job security, finding no prima facie case of a section 70 violation.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

During a union certification application involving a large proposed bargaining unit, a pre-hearing vote was held with approximately one-third of the ballots segregated due to challenges by the respondent employer.

The parties agreed to a procedure for Labour Relations Officers to examine the challenged persons.

During the inquiry, the employer sought orders from the Board to require the Officers to make a full inquiry into certain duties and to permit the employer to add to the list of challenged individuals, effectively appealing the Officers' rulings.

The Board dismissed the request, holding that it is inconsistent with the expeditious conduct of an Officer's inquiry to interrupt it to review rulings, and directed the Officers to continue their inquiry.

In an application for certification, a group of employees sought to raise allegations of impropriety regarding the union's collection of membership evidence.

The allegations were not filed by the terminal date as required by the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The Board found that the employees failed to comply with the rules for timely filing.

However, because the Board decided to conduct its own inquiry into a separate 'non-pay' allegation involving a membership card, a further hearing was required anyway.

Since entertaining the late allegations would not cause any significant additional delay, the Board exercised its discretion to allow the employees to introduce evidence of the alleged improprieties at the upcoming hearing.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer improperly interfered in the employees' selection of a trade union by encouraging them to join the intervener union instead of the applicant.

The Board found that the employer's conduct violated sections 64 and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

However, the Board declined to dismiss the intervener's certification application under section 13 of the Act, finding no complicity by the intervener in the employer's improper conduct.

The Board ordered the employer to post a notice to employees and directed that the certification applications proceed to a hearing on the remaining issues.

The Board heard representations on whether to determine if disputed work fell within the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector of the construction industry prior to hearing the merits of a jurisdictional dispute and related grievances.

The applicant union argued the sector issue should be decided first, while the respondents and complainant union argued it should be deferred to the panel hearing the jurisdictional dispute.

The Board directed that the sector issue be determined prior to considering any other issues, as it would impact the relevance of criteria used to resolve the jurisdictional dispute.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The Board appointed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the list of employees in the bargaining unit.

The parties disputed whether several individuals performed bargaining unit work on the application date.

The Board found that one employee performed on-site work and three shop employees were commonly associated with on-site employees, placing them in the bargaining unit.

One employee was found not to have performed bargaining unit work on the application date and was excluded from the list.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether five individuals classified as supervisors were 'employees' within the meaning of the Act.

The respondent employer opposed the application, arguing that the union failed to demonstrate the mischief against which section 1(3)(b) is directed and that there was a prior agreement excluding two of the individuals.

The Board found that a question existed as to the employee status of the individuals and that the mischief may have ceased.

The Board appointed a Board Officer to inquire into the duties and responsibilities of the five individuals.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description except for the inclusion of professional engineers.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and determined that it had sufficient membership support to warrant a representation vote.

The Board directed a representation vote for the general bargaining unit, with ballots from professional engineers and two challenged employees to be segregated.

Pursuant to section 6(4) of the Labour Relations Act, the Board also directed a concurrent vote among the professional engineers to determine if they wish to be included in the bargaining unit with other employees.

The applicant union sought relief under section 63 and subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that a masonry subcontractor sold its business to a related real estate development company or that the two entities constituted a single employer.

The Board dismissed the applications, finding no sale of a business as there was no continuation of the predecessor's business, and finding that the entities were not under common control or direction despite a familial relationship between their principals.

The Board also dismissed a motion to find the principal of the predecessor company in contempt, as he had purged his initial contempt by subsequently answering all relevant questions.

The applicant union sought certification for a unit of painters employed by the respondent in the construction industry.

The Board determined the composition of the bargaining unit, finding that one disputed employee was a painter while another was a labourer.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing the certification.

However, the Board found that the petition was circulated by a working foreman with supervisory responsibilities, during working hours, and with the tacit approval and proximity of the employer's owner.

Consequently, the Board concluded the petition did not represent a voluntary change of heart and declined to order a representation vote.

The Board also excluded one of the employee representatives from the hearing due to disruptive behaviour.

Certificates were issued to the union.

The union and the employer reached a tentative collective agreement, which the bargaining unit members rejected in a ratification vote.

The members also refused to strike.

Relying on its constitution, the union accepted the agreement and notified the employer.

The employer refused to execute the agreement, citing the employees' rejection and concerns about the union's constitution.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint, and an employee subsequently filed a termination application.

The Board held that the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith by refusing to execute the agreement, as it had no right to interfere in the union's internal ratification processes.

The Board directed the employer to execute the agreement and dismissed the termination application as untimely, reasoning that the agreement would have been in force prior to the application but for the employer's unlawful conduct.

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

The respondent and objecting employees argued that the notice of application was defective because it named the wrong employer and was only in English, requesting an extension and translation into Italian and Portuguese.

The Board found the notice sufficient, noting employees knew their employer and that the Board does not typically translate notices.

The Board also rejected the objectors' petition due to unreliable testimony regarding its origination and circulation.

Finding that the union had the requisite membership support, the Board issued the certificates.

In an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint, the parties raised several preliminary issues.

The Board declined to dismiss the union's section 8 application without a hearing on the merits, finding that the adequacy of membership support must be assessed in light of all circumstances.

The Board ordered the union to proceed first with its evidence on all aspects of the case.

The Board also refused the respondent's request to cross-examine the Form 9 declarant, as there were no allegations of false statements or irregularities regarding the mailed membership evidence.

Finally, the Board ordered the union to produce any tape recordings and transcripts of statements made by company officials on which it intends to rely in the proceedings.

The applicant union sought leave to withdraw its application for certification after a pre-hearing representation vote had been taken but before the ballots were counted.

A group of employees objected to the withdrawal and requested that the Board count the ballots and certify the union chosen by the majority.

The Board held that it cannot compel a union to pursue an application it no longer wishes to pursue, regardless of the employees' wishes.

However, because the request to withdraw came after the vote had been taken and without the employer's consent, the Board denied the request to withdraw and instead dismissed the application, imposing a six-month bar on future applications by the applicant for the same employees.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent occasional teachers employed by the respondent school board.

The parties disputed the appropriate bargaining unit description, specifically whether occasional teachers providing French language instruction under Part XI of the Education Act should be included in the same unit as English language occasional teachers.

The respondent also challenged the union's membership evidence, which was collected by mail and verified by telephone.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board first ruled that the membership evidence was acceptable.

On the bargaining unit issue, the Board applied the community of interest test and found that the Part XI occasional teachers shared a sufficiently coherent community of interest with the other occasional teachers.

The Board concluded that an all-inclusive bargaining unit was appropriate and directed that the segregated ballots be counted.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed statements of desire (a petition) opposing the union.

The Board held a hearing to determine the voluntariness of the petition.

The Board found inconsistencies in the evidence of the employee who circulated the petition, including his failure to disclose leaving work early on the days he mailed the petition and related letters.

The Board concluded the objectors failed to discharge the onus of proving the petition was a voluntary expression of the employees' true wishes.

As the union had the requisite membership support, the Board certified the union, pending final resolution of the bargaining unit description regarding certain disputed positions.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees sought to file a statement in opposition to the application.

The terminal date for filing was July 29, 1988.

An employee left the statement on a deserted desk at the Board's offices after hours on the terminal date.

The Board found that the document was not 'received' until it came into the possession of a staff member on the next business day, August 2, 1988.

As the statement was not filed by the terminal date, the Board declined to give it any weight and issued a certificate to the applicant.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to execute a collective agreement.

The Board previously found a violation and convened a hearing to determine the remedy.

At the hearing, the employer requested an adjournment and supplementary reasons, both of which the Board denied, noting the delay already incurred and the lack of circumstances beyond the employer's control.

On the issue of remedy, the Board directed the employer to execute the collective agreement that had been agreed upon, with retroactive effect to September 8, 1987, to restore the parties to the position they would have been in but for the violation.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union applied for declarations under the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act that the Crown transferred undertakings to several private entities, including Moose Creek Forestry Company, Harold Luckasavitch, and Charmaine's Janitorial Services.

The functions involved transplanting seedlings, operating park campgrounds, and providing janitorial services.

The Board found that the provision of these services constituted 'undertakings' or parts of undertakings within the meaning of the Act, rather than mere sub-contracts for labour.

The Board declared that the undertakings were transferred to the private entities, binding them to the collective agreement between the Crown and the union.