Employment and Labour Law

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.

The respondent opposed the withdrawal.

Applying its usual practice, the Board denied leave to withdraw, dismissed the application, and imposed a six-month bar on any new application by the union for the same employees, noting that the union's apparent support was vulnerable and did not warrant a departure from the Board's established practice.

The applicant union filed an application for certification after having previously filed and withdrawn two similar applications before the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the Canada Labour Relations Board.

The respondent employer argued that the Board should decline to entertain the new application under section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act, alleging a possibility of manipulation regarding membership evidence.

The Board found no abuse of process, noting that the membership evidence relied upon was obtained before any possibility of manipulation arose.

The Board declined to refuse to entertain the application and, based on the parties' agreement and the membership evidence, granted the certification.

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

The respondent opposed the application, arguing that four of the individuals had previously been excluded as managerial during certification in 1982.

Applying the policy from The Windsor Star, the Board found that the applicant's material sufficiently indicated that the mischief against which section 1(3)(b) is directed may have ceased.

The Board concluded that a question existed between the parties and appointed a Board Officer to inquire into the duties and responsibilities of the six individuals.

The Board considered consolidated applications regarding representation rights for carpenters employed by a framing subcontractor.

Local 183 sought a single employer declaration and to revoke Local 27's certification, arguing it had a pre-existing collective agreement.

Local 27 argued Local 183's agreement was void for employer support and because it was signed when the employer had only one employee.

The Board held that a voluntary recognition agreement can be valid with a single employee.

It also found no employer support, as the employer signed the agreement to comply with a valid subcontracting clause of the general contractor.

The Board granted the single employer declaration, found Local 183's agreement valid, and revoked Local 27's certification.

In an application for certification, the respondent employer challenged the union's membership evidence, alleging a 'non-pay' issue.

An employee had borrowed the required $1.00 membership fee from a co-worker and paid it to the union organizer.

The employer argued this did not constitute a financial sacrifice or a payment 'on his own behalf' under section 1(1)(l) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that the borrowed dollar became the employee's money to dispose of as he pleased, and its payment satisfied the statutory requirement.

The matter was re-listed to determine remaining issues regarding employee status and part-time exclusions.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by terminating two employees, holding a captive audience meeting, questioning employees about union membership, and assaulting a union official on the picket line.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the terminations, the meeting, and the questioning were motivated by anti-union animus and constituted unlawful interference and discrimination.

The Board dismissed the allegation regarding the picket line assault, finding it was a personal altercation rather than intimidation under the Act.

The employer was ordered to reinstate the terminated employees with compensation and post a notice of the violations.

The complainant was discharged after refusing to lift a heavy hutch, citing concerns about injuring his back.

He filed a complaint alleging his discharge violated section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which prohibits reprisals for exercising rights under the Act.

The Board found that the complainant had reason to believe the work was unsafe and that the employer failed to prove the discharge was not a reprisal for his work refusal.

The Board ordered compensation for wages and benefits lost during the thirty-day period following his discharge.

The applicant unions applied under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act for a direction allowing their representatives access to the employer's property, specifically the mining camp where employees reside, for the purpose of union organizing.

The employer objected to the scope and duration of the access, particularly regarding the bunkhouse areas located within the secured mine site.

The Board granted the application, finding no compelling reason to restrict access to areas where employees normally reside, and directed access subject to specific conditions and time limits.

The applicant employer association referred a grievance to arbitration, alleging that the respondent union violated the collective agreement by allowing the Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee (JATC) to limit the number of apprentices and select them based on merit rather than minimum qualifications.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement did not govern the internal workings of the JATC and that the JATC's policy of admitting only the most qualified candidates was not inconsistent with its mandate to assure an adequate supply of properly trained mechanics.

The employer applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether a librarian exercised managerial functions and should be excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board used this case to alter its policy regarding the scope of duties and responsibilities examinations, deciding it would no longer automatically restrict such inquiries to 'changes' in duties but would permit full examinations where a question as to status arises.

On the merits, the majority found that the librarian exercised effective control over the library, including making effective recommendations on automation, staffing, and hours, and had supervisory conflicts with bargaining unit staff.

The Board concluded she exercised managerial functions within the meaning of section 1(3)(b) and granted the application.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent company violated the duty to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to sign a collective agreement after all terms had been accepted.

The company admitted it withheld its signature because it hoped the settlement would avert a strike by two other bargaining units, which did not occur.

The Board found that the company violated section 15 by resiling from the agreed-upon terms and directed the company to execute the agreement.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union breached section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by acting arbitrarily in its administration of the hiring hall referral list.

The union's area steward bypassed the complainant, who was third on the list, and referred two other members to a short-term job because they lived closer to the site and could monitor it for non-union labour.

The Board found that while the steward acted without malice, his failure to even consider whether following the established list would have satisfied his concerns constituted arbitrary conduct.

The Board ruled that the union breached section 69.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent company violated the Labour Relations Act by unilaterally starting a new apprentice electrician at the third-year rate, bypassing the Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee.

The company brought a preliminary motion requesting the Board to defer the matter to arbitration.

The Board found that the essence of the complaint involved the interpretation of the collective agreement and the scope of the Joint Committee's duties.

Concluding that the dispute was primarily contractual and that arbitration was an adequate and appropriate forum, the Board granted the motion, deferred to the arbitration process, and declined to hear the complaint on its merits.

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

The Board directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be conducted among the employees in the voting constituency, which matched the incumbent union's existing bargaining unit.

The Board also directed that the applicant and incumbent unions be provided with copies of the voters list, over the respondent employer's objection.

In an application for certification, the union requested a copy of the employee list filed by the employer to keep.

The employer objected, arguing this was a departure from Board practice.

The Board affirmed that natural justice principles and practical considerations generally entitle a union to review and keep a copy of the employee list without a Labour Relations Officer present.

However, because the parties had already agreed on the voters list and there were no outstanding challenges, the Board declined to order the employer to provide the original employee list, but directed that a copy of the voters list be provided to the union.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent employer violated the Painters' Provincial Agreement by subcontracting painting work to non-union subcontractors.

The employer raised preliminary objections based on res judicata and issue estoppel, arguing that a previous grievance referral had been dismissed.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objections, finding that the previous dismissal was not an adjudication on the merits.

On the main issue, the Board held that a 1967 Working Agreement between the employer and the Toronto Building and Construction Trades Council constituted a valid voluntary recognition agreement that created bargaining rights for all affiliated unions, including the applicant.

Consequently, the employer was bound by the Painters' Provincial Agreement and violated it by subcontracting to non-union employers.

The Board ordered the employer to cease and desist and to pay damages.

During a hearing to determine whether the grievor was an employee or an independent contractor, the Ontario Labour Relations Board made several preliminary evidentiary rulings.

The Board conditionally admitted photocopies of computer print-outs, requiring the respondent to produce the originals and the names of the individuals involved.

The Board also ordered the respondent to produce 1987 payroll documents and contracts for both employees and contractors pursuant to a summons duces tecum, finding them arguably relevant to the grievor's employment status.

The Globe and Mail decided to contract out its Ontario highway delivery runs and lay off its drivers to save costs.

The union alleged that the contracting out to independent carriers constituted a sale of a business or that the entities were related employers under the Labour Relations Act.

The union also alleged unfair labour practices when the Globe refused to award delivery contracts to four laid-off employees after the union indicated it might assert they remained employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the applications, finding no sale of a business or related employer relationship, as the Globe merely transferred a like function to independent contractors.

The Board declined to grant remedial relief for the alleged unfair labour practices, noting the Globe's actions were a response to the union's late assertion of rights that would have undermined the legitimate business decision to contract out.

The applicant parent union applied under section 82(2) of the Labour Relations Act for the Board's consent to extend its supervision and control over the respondent local for an additional year.

The supervision was initially requested by the local's membership due to severe internal frictions that impaired its functioning.

The Board found that the local could not function if supervision ended prematurely and noted the absence of opposition to the application.

The Board granted the application, leaving any early termination of supervision to be determined under the union's constitution.

The union grieved that the employer contravened the collective agreement by failing to pay an employee for the three days it took him to obtain a medical certificate confirming his fitness to work.

The employee had disclosed a shoulder problem during a pre-employment assessment.

The Board held that the employer had reasonable grounds to require medical evidence of fitness and was not obligated to compensate the employee during the interim period.

The grievance was dismissed, save for four hours' pay agreed to by the parties for the time spent on the employer's premises.