Employment and Labour Law

The respondent requested reconsideration of a Board decision, alleging the Vice-Chair acted as counsel for the unrepresented complainant.

The Board dismissed the request, noting it is standard practice to explain procedures to unrepresented parties and the respondent raised no new evidence.

The complainant notified the Board of the respondent's failure to pay the $4,500 ordered in the original decision.

The Board treated this as notification of non-compliance and directed that the determination be filed with the Supreme Court for enforcement.

The employer applied for a declaration of an unlawful strike after the union refused to sign a collective agreement reflecting a final offer that had been accepted in a section 40 vote.

The union argued the bargaining unit only covered marine operations, not woods operations, and challenged the eligibility of several voters.

The Board found that the bargaining unit included both operations and determined the eligibility of disputed voters, concluding the final offer was accepted.

The Board held that the union breached its duty to bargain in good faith by refusing to execute the agreement, but declined to declare the strike unlawful, instead directing the union to sign the agreement.

The applicant union filed a construction industry grievance alleging the respondents failed to hold a mark-up meeting regarding scaffolding erection for elevator construction.

An intervening union requested the Board defer the grievance, arguing it was essentially a jurisdictional dispute over work assignment.

The Board dismissed the request to defer, directing that the grievance proceed to a hearing on whether the collective agreement was breached.

The Board held that while a jurisdictional dispute was at the root of the damages claim, it would be premature to embark on a jurisdictional dispute proceeding before a breach of the collective agreement was established.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor was laid off in violation of the collective agreement.

The respondent employer argued that the collective agreement did not apply because the grievor was working in a pallet yard as part of a rehabilitation program for injured workers, which it claimed was not construction industry work.

The Board found that the collective agreement contained a latent ambiguity regarding its application to the pallet yard work.

Relying on extrinsic evidence, including the deduction of union dues and the application of trade jurisdictions in the pallet yard, the Board concluded that the parties intended the collective agreement to apply.

The grievance was allowed.

The complainant alleged that his employment was terminated contrary to section 24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act because he planned to circulate a petition requesting a lunchroom.

The respondent employer maintained that the complainant was discharged for overall poor performance, including chronic lateness and complaints from co-workers.

The Board found that the employer had no knowledge of the petition activity and that the termination was not motivated by any health and safety concerns.

The Board also declined to exercise its discretion under section 24(7) to modify the penalty, as there was no nexus between the employer's actions and the complainant's health and safety activity.

The complaint was dismissed, with one Board Member dissenting.

The applicant trade union referred several grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent employers violated the collective agreement by assigning certain work to composite crews of millwrights and ironworkers.

The intervener ironworkers' union argued that the grievances were essentially jurisdictional disputes and should be deferred or dismissed.

The Board held that it had jurisdiction to hear the section 124 referrals but, in accordance with its usual practice, decided to first entertain the jurisdictional dispute complaint filed under section 91 before proceeding with the grievances.

The complainant, representing former employees of Massey-Ferguson, alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by negotiating a substandard settlement for termination and severance pay.

The respondent union and the intervener employer moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it did not disclose a prima facie case and that there was extreme delay in filing.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the complainants failed to plead sufficient material facts to establish an arguable case.

Furthermore, the Board exercised its discretion under section 89 to decline to inquire into the complaint due to an unexplained delay of two to three years, which caused extreme prejudice to the parties who had relied on the executed settlement.

The parties requested the Ontario Labour Relations Board to arbitrate the settlement of their first collective agreement under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

As a preliminary matter, the Board ruled that the parties' conduct during negotiations is irrelevant to determining the contents of the arbitrated agreement.

On the merits, the Board determined the appropriate terms for hours of work, pension contributions, and wage rates by comparing other collective agreements in the industry and geographic area, while accounting for the employer's specific operational context and the pre-existing collective agreement with a displaced union.

The Board ordered the inclusion of the arbitrated terms and made the wage increases retroactive.

The complainant brought preliminary motions requesting that the Ontario Labour Relations Board produce an official transcript of the proceedings, or alternatively, that the complainant's representative be permitted to tape record the hearing.

The Board dismissed the motion for an official transcript, finding no requirement under the Charter or common law natural justice to maintain a verbatim record, and declining to exercise its discretion to do so due to concerns over cost, delay, and formality.

However, the Board granted the request to tape record the proceedings, provided it is done unobtrusively and solely for the purpose of supplementing handwritten notes, not as an official record.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to provide her with strike pay.

The union allegedly refused because the complainant drove replacement workers and did not picket.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing, finding that the refusal to provide strike pay is an internal union matter that does not involve the representation of an employee in relation to their employer, and therefore falls outside the Board's jurisdiction under section 68.

In an application for certification, the applicant union requested that the Board direct the respondent employer to post notices at seventeen different work sites or, alternatively, supply employee addresses for service by mail.

The Board, following its practice for security guards with irregular work patterns or multiple sites, directed the employer to provide a list of employee addresses so that notice of the application could be mailed directly to the affected employees.

The terminal date for the application was extended accordingly.

The applicant unions sought declarations under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that a sale of a business had occurred between K & Z Construction Ltd. and Yola Construction Ltd., or alternatively, that the two companies were related employers under common control or direction.

K & Z had ceased operations due to financial difficulties, and one of its owners subsequently became a part-owner of Yola, an existing business.

The Board dismissed the section 63 application, finding no transfer of a functional economic vehicle.

The Board also declined to exercise its discretion to make a related employer declaration under section 1(4), concluding that doing so would inappropriately extend rather than preserve the unions' bargaining rights, as the new owner brought no meaningful part of K & Z's business to Yola.

The petitioners requested that their application for termination of bargaining rights be heard prior to the union's previously filed application for direction of the settlement of a first contract by arbitration.

The Board considered its discretion under section 40a(22) of the Labour Relations Act.

Noting that the first contract application had already commenced and three days of evidence had been heard before it was adjourned for mediation, the Board ruled it would be most appropriate to continue hearing the first contract application first.

The termination application was adjourned pending the outcome.

The complainants alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by consenting to the employer's failure to apply the collective agreement to them.

The complainants were casual employees who were paid less than the union rate.

The Board found that the union had abandoned any bargaining rights it may have had to represent casual employees long before the complainants were employed.

Consequently, the union did not owe the complainants a duty of fair representation.

The complaint was dismissed.

The incumbent union and the employer filed a joint application for early termination of their collective agreement.

The intervening union, the United Steelworkers of America, objected to the application, arguing that early termination would eliminate the statutory 'open period' and prejudice its ongoing organizing campaign to displace the incumbent union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, holding that it would not grant early termination where it would abridge the two-month open period guaranteed by the Labour Relations Act and prejudice another union's right to organize.

The Society of Ontario Hydro Professional and Administrative Employees filed an application and complaint asserting that its existing agreements with Ontario Hydro constituted a collective agreement under the Labour Relations Act.

Ontario Hydro and an intervener argued that the agreements were not a collective agreement and that the Society was estopped from asserting otherwise.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the doctrine of estoppel could apply to prevent a party from asserting that an agreement is a collective agreement under the Act.

Finding that the Society had historically represented to Hydro that their agreements were outside the Act, and that Hydro had relied on these representations in entering into the 1983 Master Agreement, the Board concluded that the Society was estopped from now claiming the agreements constituted a collective agreement.

The application and complaint were dismissed.

The complainant, an environmental technologist, alleged he was discharged contrary to section 134b(2) of the Environmental Protection Act after cooperating with a Ministry of the Environment investigation and refusing to destroy sensitive documents.

The employer claimed he was terminated for failing to return to work from sick leave.

The Board found the employer's reasons were pretextual and that a major reason for the discharge was the complainant's compliance with the Act and provision of information to the Ministry.

The Board ruled the discharge violated the Act and held that damages would be assessed based on actual compensation rather than Employment Standards Act minimums.

In an application for a declaration terminating bargaining rights, the union sought production of various employer documents via a summons duces tecum.

The Board initially denied the broad request as a fishing expedition.

Subsequently, the union narrowed its request.

The Board directed the employer to produce time cards for specific dates to address allegations of management involvement in the petition's circulation, while other document requests were resolved by agreement.

The applicant union applied for certification and a representation vote was held, resulting in a substantial majority in favour of the union.

However, the employer was unable to post the Form 70 Notice to Employees of the vote results until the day before the time fixed for objections.

Out of an abundance of caution, the Board directed the employer to post this decision and extended the time for employees to contest the election results to January 21, 1990.

If no persuasive representations are received, a certificate will issue.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The respondent employer attempted to resile from an earlier agreement regarding the list of employees in the bargaining unit on the application date.

The Board refused to allow the respondent to resile from its agreement, citing the need for finality in certification proceedings.

The Board also determined that one challenged individual was acting as a site superintendent and was therefore excluded from the bargaining unit.

As the union had sufficient membership support, the Board issued certificates for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector and all other sectors in the appropriate geographic area.