Employment and Labour Law

The respondent employer raised the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a defence to a grievance alleging a violation of the union security clause (article 3) of a collective agreement.

The parties agreed to have the Board determine as a preliminary issue whether the collective agreement was subject to Charter scrutiny.

The Board found that the collective agreement was negotiated by entities that are not part of government, and the negotiation of a collective agreement is a private matter not involving the exercise of government policy or function.

Consequently, the Board held that the collective agreement is not subject to the Charter and directed that the grievance be heard on its merits.

The applicant union applied for certification of employees at a new plant.

The employer and the incumbent union argued the application was untimely due to a recently signed collective agreement.

The applicant and employee complainants argued the agreement should be set aside under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act or as a remedy for the incumbent union's breach of its duty of fair representation under section 68.

The Board found that the incumbent union already held bargaining rights for the new plant under a prior city-wide agreement, so section 60 did not apply.

However, the Board held that the incumbent union breached section 68 by completely failing to consult the new plant's employees before concluding a separate, inferior collective agreement for them.

The Board declined to set aside the collective agreement as a remedy, finding it inappropriate to penalize the employer who had not breached the Act, but ordered the union to pay damages to the complainants for the loss of opportunity to be consulted.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of the respondent's employees.

During the inquiry into the employee list, it was discovered that two individuals signed union membership cards after they had been permanently laid off by the respondent.

The Board held that no weight should be given to membership evidence signed by individuals after they have severed their employment relationship, as they cannot be considered employees in the bargaining unit.

Because the union's entitlement to automatic certification depended on these two cards, the Board ordered a representation vote to determine the wishes of the employees.

The applicants applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union and its Local 1036.

At the initial hearing, the Board dismissed the application on a motion by the respondents, finding that all affiliated local unions named in the provincial collective agreement were necessary parties and had not been properly named or given sufficient notice.

Upon reconsideration, the Board found that all affiliated locals had in fact received actual notice and were represented at the hearing.

Concluding that it was overly technical to deny an amendment to the title of the proceedings, the Board revoked its earlier dismissal, amended the title nunc pro tunc to include all affiliated locals as respondents, and directed that the application be scheduled for a hearing on the merits.

The trade union (Local 175) requested the appointment of a conciliation officer.

The employer objected, arguing Local 175 did not hold bargaining rights for the employees.

Local 175 claimed it was the successor to Local 206, which had been certified, due to a merger.

The Minister referred the question of his authority to appoint a conciliation officer to the Board under s. 107 of the Labour Relations Act.

Local 175 conceded that the alleged merger occurred before Local 206 was certified, meaning the condition precedent for a successor declaration under s. 62(1) was not met.

The Board held that its powers under s. 107(2) are no broader than under s. 62(1).

Consequently, the Board could not declare Local 175 the successor trade union and advised the Minister that he lacked authority to appoint a conciliation officer at Local 175's request.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The respondent employer argued that employees who were employed by the respondent but working outside the bargaining unit on the application date should be included in the bargaining unit count, relying on the '30/30' rule.

The Board rejected this argument, affirming its consistent policy in construction industry applications to count only those employees actually at work in the bargaining unit on the application date.

Finding that more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant, the Board issued a certificate.

The applicant faculty association applied for certification to represent full-time faculty and professional librarians at Wilfrid Laurier University.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1)(p) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also determined that the applicant's constitution and bylaws gave it the capacity to represent professional librarians, despite a history of not doing so.

The Board certified the applicant on an interim basis for a bargaining unit of full-time faculty, pending a final determination by a Board Officer regarding the inclusion of professional librarians and other disputed classifications.

The complainant union sought an interim order under section 91(8) of the Labour Relations Act to redistribute work in its favour, citing an imminent strike by its own members.

The Board initially refused the interim order without a hearing, reasoning that a party cannot rely on its own illegal strike threat to obtain relief.

The complainant sought reconsideration, arguing the refusal without a hearing or consultation was a denial of fundamental justice.

The Board dismissed the application for reconsideration, affirming that it has discretion under section 91(8) and is not required to hold a hearing when the pleadings do not disclose a valid basis for an interim order.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act that a sale of a business occurred between the respondent hotel and a newly established brew pub operating within the hotel's premises.

The union argued the hotel contracted out its food and beverage operations.

The Board found that the relationship was a standard commercial landlord-tenant arrangement and that the brew pub was a separate and parallel business, not a continuation of the hotel's former operations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The respondent employer requested a hearing, arguing that several employees did not understand English or the certification process.

The Board declined to hold a hearing, finding that the employer lacked standing to speak for the employees on this issue absent allegations of fraud or coercion.

Finding that the union had the requisite membership support of over fifty-five percent, the Board issued certificates for the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector and all other sectors in the appropriate geographic areas.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

A group of employees sought to file a statement of opposition after the terminal date and requested an extension of time.

The Board declined to extend the terminal date, noting that the employees had sufficient notice and time to file their objections.

As the union filed timely documentary evidence of membership for more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit, the Board granted the application and issued a certificate.

The union alleged that the respondents were successor employers to Royal Dressed Meats Inc. after purchasing its plant and equipment from a trustee in bankruptcy.

The union also alleged unfair labour practices for failing to recognize the union and apply the collective agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while there was a sale of assets, there was no sale of a 'business' or 'part of a business' within the meaning of section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondents had merely acquired assets to expand an already established, parallel business, and there was no transfer of goodwill, customer lists, or the predecessor's economic organization.

Both the successorship application and the unfair labour practice complaint were dismissed.

The complainant union applied for an interim order under section 91(8) of the Labour Relations Act regarding a jurisdictional dispute over the dismantling, transport, and reassembly of shelving.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union threatened an unlawful strike if the work was not reassigned to its members, resulting in the layoff of labourers.

The Board declined to make an interim order because the disputed work was scheduled to be completed by the end of the business day, rendering any order academic.

The complainants, three employees at a gypsum mine, refused to work after discovering that the mine's fire alarm system did not function during power failures, which were frequent.

The employer implemented a temporary contingency plan, but the complainants felt it was inadequate and continued to refuse work, leading to their suspension.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the complainants had reasonable grounds to believe the workplace was unsafe and that the employer violated section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by disciplining them.

The Board ordered the employer to compensate the complainants for all losses suffered as a result of the suspensions.

The complainant union sought an interim order under section 91(8) of the Labour Relations Act to redistribute work in a jurisdictional dispute.

The Board noted that the only strike or strike threat alleged was by the complainant itself and its own members.

The Board declined to make an interim order, holding that a complainant should not be able to profit from its own unlawful conduct or threat thereof.

The decision was made without prejudice to the merits of the jurisdictional dispute claim.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights ten weeks after the union was certified.

The union raised preliminary objections, arguing the application was untimely under section 123(1) of the Labour Relations Act and requesting the Board exercise its discretion under section 103(2)(i) to bar the application.

The Board held that the application was timely under section 57(2)(a) because the union had become bound by a provincial agreement upon certification, and the application was filed during the last two months of that agreement's operation.

The Board also found it had no discretion under section 103(2)(i) to bar the application based on unsuccessful employee petitions filed during the certification process.

The preliminary objections were dismissed.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Krest Masonry Contracting Limited and Canada Contracting were one employer, or alternatively that there was a sale of a business under section 63.

Krest, a unionized masonry contractor, was bound by a collective agreement.

Canada Contracting was incorporated by family members of Krest's directors and operated as a non-union broker on the same construction sites, utilizing Krest's materials and services.

The Board found that the two companies were engaged in related business activities under common control and direction, serving as a vehicle for Krest to avoid its collective agreement obligations.

The Board granted the section 1(4) declaration, making it effective as of the application date.

The respondent employer requested reconsideration of the Board's decision to certify the applicant union, arguing that two of the employees who applied for membership were no longer employed.

The Board denied the request, noting that in construction industry certification applications, the relevant date for determining the list of employees is the date the application is made.

Subsequent events, such as layoffs or dismissals, do not justify reconsidering a certification decision.

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

The Board considered the validity of the union's membership evidence and Form 80 declaration.

The Board rejected two membership cards that omitted the local union number but accepted the Form 80 as proper, noting that the defects were apparent on the face of the cards.

The parties settled the unfair labour practice complaint, agreeing to reinstate certain employees, pay damages, and hold a representation vote.

The Board also determined that a working foreman exercised managerial functions under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act and was therefore excluded from the bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The parties disputed whether seven employees were in the bargaining unit on the application date.

Applying the Gilvesy test, the Board excluded three employees who spent the majority of their time as truck drivers and two who were not engaged in construction work on the application date.

However, the Board included two equipment mechanics who regularly performed repair work both on-site and in the shop, finding them commonly associated in their work with on-site employees under section 117(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

A representation vote was ordered.