Employment and Labour Law

The union applied for the arbitration of a first collective agreement under section 40a(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer and an employee seeking termination of bargaining rights requested adjournments, which the Board denied.

When the employer failed to appear at the hearing, the Board proceeded in its absence and settled the first collective agreement based on the union's proposed terms, with modifications to reflect standard first-contract provisions.

The complainant, an occupational health nurse, alleged she was discharged contrary to section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after refusing to return keys to the employer's medical files during a labour dispute, citing confidentiality concerns.

The employer claimed she was fired for insubordination and abusive language.

The Board found the complainant was genuinely attempting to comply with the confidentiality provisions of the Act.

While her abusive language warranted discipline, discharge was excessive.

The Board ordered the discharge removed from her record and substituted a written warning.

The complainants alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act during the negotiation of a mine closure agreement.

The complainants argued that the negotiating committee should have been elected, members should have been consulted, the agreement should have been subject to a ratification vote, and more pension information should have been provided.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union acted reasonably and in the best interests of the employees given its lack of bargaining power and the company's refusal to allow a ratification vote.

The Board also found no obligation to elect the negotiating committee and concluded that sufficient information had been provided to members.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer unlawfully discharged a key union organizer and interfered with the organizing campaign.

The employer claimed the discharge and employee communications were due to a price war with competitors.

The Board found the employer's explanation for the discharge lacked credibility and concluded the employee was terminated for his trade union activity, violating the Labour Relations Act.

Finding that the employer's illegal conduct made it unlikely that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained through a representation vote, the Board certified the union pursuant to section 8 of the Act and ordered the reinstatement of the discharged employee with compensation.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Cronkwright Transport Limited and Erie Employee Services Ltd. constituted a single employer.

Cronkwright had previously contracted out shunting work to an independent operator but later transferred the work to Erie, a related corporation under common control.

The Board found that the essential elements of a related employer relationship were present and that the transfer of work to a related entity, rather than an arm's-length contractor, threatened to erode bargaining rights.

The Board exercised its discretion to grant the declaration, binding Erie to the collective agreement.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the application on grounds of delay and the employees' right to free choice.

During a hearing on a Charter challenge to section 12 of the Labour Relations Act, the respondents objected to a Board Member sitting on the panel due to comments he made in the Ontario Legislature 20 years prior.

The Board dismissed the bias objection, finding the comments did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Board also ruled that expert evidence concerning the scope of freedom of association in other countries was inadmissible during the section 2(d) phase of the hearing, though the proposed expert was found qualified to testify on comparative European labour law in the section 1 phase.

An employee in the bargaining unit requested reconsideration of the Board's decision certifying the union.

The employee alleged improper solicitation techniques and fraud regarding a petition.

The Board dismissed the allegations of improper solicitation as untimely, since the employee conceded a lack of due diligence in investigating and raising them.

However, the Board found that the allegations of fraud regarding the petition suggested a serious abuse of process and set the matter down for a hearing to allow the employee to call evidence.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees.

The Board previously directed a representation vote and orally ruled that the applicant was a trade union.

In these written reasons, the Board confirmed the applicant's status as a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, noting its history of representing Crown employees and its constitution.

However, as not more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast in the representation vote were in favour of the applicant, the application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of construction labourers.

The intervener trade union, which already represented bricklayers' assistants employed by one of the related respondent employers, challenged the applicant's proposed bargaining unit description, arguing it improperly carved out a portion of the applicant's designated trade contrary to the province-wide bargaining scheme.

The Board held that the intervener had status to intervene.

The Board further held that it had jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act to describe a bargaining unit that excludes a portion of a designated trade where those employees are already represented by another trade union, and that it was appropriate to do so in this case to preserve existing bargaining rights and avoid disenfranchising unrepresented employees.

The applicant filed an application for a declaration terminating the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union argued the application was untimely because a collective agreement, executed after the application was filed, had a retroactive duration clause that covered the date of the application.

The Board held that the timeliness of a termination application is determined at the time it is filed.

A collective agreement signed subsequent to the application cannot retroactively render it untimely.

The application was found to be timely and a representation vote was directed.

The complainant, a driver for vehicles transporting the handicapped, alleged he was dismissed as a reprisal for exercising his rights under the Occupational Health and Safety Act after refusing to complete a thirteen-hour shift.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the complainant was dismissed because of his refusal to work his assigned shift, not for exercising rights under the Act.

The Board noted that an inspector had previously found no OHSA violation and that the complainant was attempting to shorten his shift to suit his personal lifestyle preferences.

The complaint was dismissed.

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

The parties agreed on a proposed bargaining unit that differed from the incumbent union's unit by including temporary and salaried employees.

The Board established two voting constituencies—one corresponding to the incumbent's unit and another for the add-on segment—and directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be conducted in each constituency.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a tag-end unit of employees at Transit Windsor.

The Board first found that the applicant was a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, given its fifty-year history of collective bargaining.

The respondent argued that operations supervisors should be excluded based on a 1979 Board decision that excluded their predecessors (transit inspectors) from another unit, and urged the Board to dismiss that part of the application without an inquiry.

The Board declined to apply res judicata or estoppel, noting the passage of ten years and a change in job titles, and appointed a Board Officer to inquire into their duties.

Finally, despite disputes over the status of more than half the proposed bargaining unit, the Board issued an interim certificate under section 6(2) of the Act, finding that the disputes were not insuperable barriers to the commencement of meaningful collective bargaining.

The applicant filed an application for a declaration that the respondent union no longer represents the employees of the intervener employer.

The respondent union argued the application was untimely.

The Board reviewed section 61(2) of the Labour Relations Act, which governs the timeliness of termination applications following the appointment of a conciliation officer.

The Board found that the application could not be filed before the later of twelve months after the conciliation officer's appointment or thirty days after the Minister's notice not to appoint a conciliation board.

As the application was filed prematurely, it was dismissed as untimely without a hearing.

The complainant alleged he was discharged contrary to section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act for raising safety concerns and participating in a health and safety committee.

The employer maintained the discharge was solely because the complainant deliberately or recklessly struck a fellow employee's hand with a hammer, causing serious injury.

The Board found the employer's decision was not tainted by anti-safety animus and was based entirely on the complainant's violent conduct and prior disciplinary record.

The Board declined to substitute a lesser penalty and dismissed the complaint.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees applied under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of the Hamilton-Wentworth Roman Catholic Separate School Board Professional Staff Association following a merger.

A group of audio-visual technicians objected, requesting to be carved out of the bargaining unit.

The Board granted the successor rights declaration, finding that a valid merger had occurred.

The Board dismissed the employees' request, holding that section 62 does not grant the Board jurisdiction to amend the composition of a bargaining unit, which must be acquired intact by the successor union.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of electricians.

The respondent employer objected, arguing that the union's provincial collective agreement discriminated on the basis of age by providing preferential treatment to older workers, contrary to the Human Rights Code and section 13 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board denied the Ontario Human Rights Commission intervener status.

The Board found that the impugned provisions, which provided job security and preferred access to less physically demanding jobs for older members, did not constitute prohibited discrimination but were reasonable accommodations.

The Board also resolved a dispute over an employee's inclusion in the bargaining unit and ultimately granted the certification.

The respondent union complained by letter about the conduct of a Labour Relations Officer designated to conduct an inquiry and requested directions from the Board.

The Board declined to intervene, noting that Practice Note No. 4 establishes the procedure for such inquiries and that an Officer has discretion within those parameters.

The Board held that it would be inappropriate to intervene in the midst of the inquiry, as the proper time to rule on such objections is after receiving the Officer's report and the parties' submissions on it.

The union's requests were denied without prejudice to its right to raise the objections at the proper time.

The applicant union applied for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The union argued that collective bargaining was unsuccessful due to the employer's uncompromising position on benefits without reasonable justification.

The employer refused to maintain the high level of benefits previously enjoyed by the unorganized employees, proposing instead a two-tiered system where new hires would receive lower community-standard benefits.

The Board found that the employer's position was designed to send a message that unionization would cost employees their benefits, which was not a reasonable justification.

The Board directed the settlement of the first collective agreement by arbitration.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging that the employer's intention to implement a direct deposit system for paying wages violated the collective agreement, which required payment 'by cash' or 'by cheque'.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that direct deposit is neither payment by cash nor by cheque, as 'payment' means payment directly to the worker, and 'by cash' means payment of legal tender directly to the worker.

The Board declared that payment of wages by direct deposit would not comply with the collective agreement.