Employment and Labour Law

The applicant union applied for certification for a unit of carpenters and carpenters' apprentices employed by the respondent.

The respondent argued that the individuals in question were independent contractors, not employees.

The Board found that the individuals, who performed finish carpentry at a fixed price per house and were economically dependent on the respondent, were dependent contractors and therefore employees under the Labour Relations Act.

As the union had the requisite membership support, the Board issued final certificates for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector and all other sectors in the relevant geographic areas.

The applicant trade union alleged that a sale of a business occurred between ComDev and Senstar Corporation, and sought a declaration that Senstar was bound by the existing collective agreement.

Senstar argued that only assets were transferred, that the union's geographic scope did not cover Senstar's location, and that the union's constitution did not permit Senstar employees to join.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the transfer of patents, technical expertise, customer lists, and goodwill constituted a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also interpreted the collective agreement's geographic scope liberally to include Senstar's location and found the union's constitutional amendment valid.

A representation vote was ordered due to the intermingling of employees.

In a union certification application, a pre-hearing representation vote resulted in only one eligible ballot being cast.

The employee who cast the ballot wrote to the Board requesting that it not be opened, fearing retaliation from the union or the employer since his vote would not be secret.

The Board declined to depart from its previous decisions ordering the ballot to be counted, noting that a voter cannot withdraw a ballot once cast.

The Board emphasized that the Labour Relations Act provides ample protection against retaliatory action for participating in Board proceedings and directed the Registrar to count the ballot.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and initially proposed a bargaining unit that excluded group leaders.

At the hearing, the parties agreed to amend the bargaining unit to include group leaders.

The applicant argued the Board should proceed without giving further notice to the group leaders.

The Board held that the group leaders were entitled to notice as their legal rights could be affected by the application.

The Board directed that a new Notice to Employees be posted and extended the terminal date.

The applicant union alleged a lockout and sought relief under section 135 of the Labour Relations Act.

The parties had previously entered into a written interim settlement agreement regarding a work assignment dispute.

The applicant alleged the respondents breached this agreement.

The respondents argued the Board lacked jurisdiction and that the agreement had expired.

The Board found it had jurisdiction under section 89(7) of the Act to enforce the settlement, determined the agreement was not time-limited, and ordered the respondents to comply with the agreed-upon work assignment.

The applicant employer sought a declaration that its office employees were engaging in an unlawful strike, arguing they were still bound by a collective agreement extension clause.

The respondent union contended that it had provided adequate notice to terminate the extension arrangement under section 52(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the union's communications, which clearly repudiated the extension and warned of a strike, constituted sufficient 30 days' notice to terminate the bridge agreement.

Having completed the conciliation process, the office employees were entitled to strike.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants sought a declaration under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent was a successor employer to a sole proprietorship following a sale of business in 1957.

The respondents argued that the statutory provisions, which were enacted in 1963 and 1971 respectively, could not be applied retrospectively.

The Board held that the presumption against retrospectivity applied because the provisions attached new consequences to a past event and did not merely declare a current status.

The Board further found that the provisions were not purely protective of the public in a manner that would rebut the presumption.

The applications were dismissed.

The employer applied for a declaration and direction under section 92 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that union members engaged in an unlawful strike through a concerted refusal to work overtime.

The parties reached a written agreement to resolve the matter.

The Board issued a consent order declaring the overtime ban an unlawful strike, directing the union and its officers to cease and desist from encouraging the ban, and requiring the posting of a notice to employees.

The Board also provided commentary emphasizing that concerted refusals to work overtime, even when overtime is voluntary under a collective agreement, constitute unlawful strikes.

The applicant union requested the issuance of an interim certificate document pursuant to section 6(2) of the Labour Relations Act, pending the final resolution of related section 1(4) and 63 applications.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the request, clarifying that the Act does not contemplate an interim certificate document.

The Board's written decision recording its determination to certify the union on an interim basis serves as the only necessary documentation.

In an application for certification, a pre-hearing representation vote was held in which only one person was eligible to vote and cast a ballot.

The applicant trade union requested that the ballot not be counted to preserve the secrecy of the vote, and that a new vote be held.

The respondent employer agreed the ballot should not be counted but argued the application should be dismissed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the mere fact that only one person was eligible to vote or cast a ballot does not invalidate a representation vote.

The Board concluded that while secrecy of the ballot is important, it should not take precedence over the right of employees to choose whether to be represented by a trade union.

The Board directed that the ballot box be unsealed and the single ballot counted.

The applicant union filed applications under the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act seeking declarations that various contractors who entered into contracts with the Crown to perform forest management work (regeneration surveys and herbicide spraying) were bound by the collective agreement between the union and the Crown.

The Crown argued that the work did not constitute an 'undertaking' and relied on a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision interpreting a similar term in the Quebec Labour Code.

The Board rejected the Crown's argument, finding that the statutory definition of 'undertaking' in the Ontario Act was broader and encompassed the transfer of parts of a Crown program.

The Board granted the applications, declaring the contractors bound by the collective agreement.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the applications.

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

The respondent argued it was not an employer in the construction industry, as the assembly of retail store displays was not construction work.

The Board found it unnecessary to decide whether the work was construction work.

Applying the 'majority of time' test, the Board determined that the two employees in question did not spend a majority of their time on the date of application performing the assembly and installation work.

As there were no employees in the proposed bargaining unit on the date of application, the application was dismissed.

The union applied for certification.

A group of objecting employees sought reconsideration of a prior Board decision finding their petitions opposing certification to be untimely.

The Board allowed the reconsideration, finding the petitions were timely as they were deposited with Canada Post on the terminal date, despite bearing the next day's registration stamp.

However, upon inquiring into the voluntariness of the petitions, the Board found they were not a voluntary expression of employee wishes.

The petitions were initiated and circulated by a working foreman who was perceived to be acting on behalf of the employer and who made threats regarding job security.

As the petitions were given no weight, the union was entitled to certification.

The applicant union sought to represent a bargaining unit of security guards.

The union raised a concern that posting notices of the certification application on the employer's premises would be inadequate, as guards regularly work at clients' locations, and requested that the Board require clients to post notices.

The Board declined to adopt this approach, noting potential legal and practical difficulties.

Instead, the Board established a practice whereby, if a notice problem is identified, the employer will be directed to supply employee addresses so that notice can be served by mail.

The matter was adjourned pending the resolution of a Charter challenge regarding section 12 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement and the Employment Standards Act by making unauthorized deductions from employees' wages to recover income tax arrears.

Following a Revenue Canada audit, the employer paid the estimated taxes owed by its employees for unreported travel allowances and subsequently deducted these amounts from their paycheques without written authorization.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the overpayment of wages due to the initial failure to deduct income tax did not constitute 'wages' under the Act, and that the deductions were permitted by statute.

The applicant union sought certification.

The respondent employer and objecting employees alleged that the membership evidence was tainted by the improper conduct of a rank and file employee who acted as a collector.

They alleged he threatened job security and misrepresented the union's two-tier initiation fee structure.

The Board found that the collector was not a union official and his statements, while improper in some respects, would not have deterred or unduly influenced a reasonable employee.

The Board concluded the membership evidence was voluntary and certified the union.

The applicant union brought an application alleging a sale of business from Ameri-Cana Motel Limited to a numbered company, seeking to bind the numbered company to the provincial collective agreement.

The respondents argued the union had abandoned its bargaining rights, which were originally obtained by certification in 1972.

The Board found that the union failed to take reasonable steps to monitor the employer's construction activities between 1973 and 1977, despite the employer operating from a fixed location where ongoing construction was visible.

Consequently, the Board concluded the union had abandoned its bargaining rights prior to the advent of province-wide bargaining in 1978, and dismissed the application.

The union applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that Dutch Boy's acquisition of a lease and fixtures from a former Steinberg supermarket constituted a sale of a business.

Steinberg had closed its store and surrendered its lease, after which the property was sold to a developer.

Dutch Boy later leased the premises and acquired the fixtures.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the transactions did not constitute a sale of Steinberg's business to Dutch Boy, but rather an expansion of Dutch Boy's existing business into the vacant premises.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for journeymen and apprentice painters employed by the respondent in the construction industry.

The respondent employer requested a hearing and a representation vote, arguing that certification would negatively impact its business and that employees were misled.

The Board denied the requests, noting that the size of the business and potential financial impact are irrelevant to certification, and the respondent failed to particularize its allegations of impropriety.

Finding that the applicant had demonstrated membership support of over fifty-five percent, the Board granted the application and issued certificates for both the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector province-wide and all other sectors in the relevant geographic area.

The complainant alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to adequately represent him after he was laid off and lost his seniority.

The complainant claimed he had arranged a fake lay-off with the employer to hide income from his ex-wife, but the employer later treated him as a new employee.

The union filed a grievance but withdrew it after the complainant stormed out of a meeting.

The Board rejected the complainant's version of events, finding he had voluntarily quit, and dismissed the complaint as there was no evidence the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.