Employment and Labour Law

The applicant applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights for employees of the intervener employer.

The Board determined that the application could only affect bargaining rights outside the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector, as no employees were working in the ICI sector on the application date.

The Board also rejected the union's argument that certain employees should be excluded from the unit because they were allegedly recalled from layoff contrary to the collective agreement, finding no evidence of employer manipulation.

Concluding that at least 45 per cent of the employees had voluntarily signified they no longer wished to be represented by the union, the Board directed a representation vote.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.

A group of employees filed a petition objecting to the certification.

The Board found that the objecting employees, who were unrepresented, failed to adduce first-hand evidence regarding the origination and circulation of the petition, and failed to account for its custody.

Consequently, the Board gave no weight to the petition.

As the union demonstrated membership support of more than 55 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit, the Board granted the application and issued the certificates.

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

The respondent employer argued it was not an employer in the construction industry, asserting that the painting work performed by its employees at a university student residence was maintenance rather than construction.

The Board held that the primary purpose of the painting was decorative, not to sustain or protect the function of the premises, and therefore constituted construction work.

Consequently, the Board found the respondent to be an employer in the construction industry and granted the application for certification.

A dissenting board member would have found the work to be maintenance.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent.

The parties agreed on most matters but disputed whether the applicant held trade union status under the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent argued that the applicant's formation violated democratic principles, its constitution was not strictly followed regarding charter fees, and a constitutional provision barring subversive members violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Board rejected these arguments, finding that the applicant was properly chartered, adopted a constitution, had members and officers, and was formed for labour relations purposes.

The Board granted interim certification pending the resolution of a dispute over the managerial status of two employees.

The complainant was discharged from her employment at a car dealership shortly after refusing to perform a paint inventory due to noxious fumes.

The employer claimed the discharge was solely due to her poor performance, which had been a concern for months.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the complainant had exercised her right to refuse unsafe work under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Applying the reverse onus, the Board concluded the employer failed to prove that the discharge was entirely unrelated to the work refusal, noting the suspicious timing and the employer's trivialization of her health concerns.

The complaint was allowed.

The applicant union sought declarations under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, alleging a sale of business and that the two corporate respondents were related employers.

The respondents conceded they carried on related activities under common control but argued the application should be dismissed due to the union's delay.

The Board found that the union had actual knowledge of the non-union company's operations and its employment of non-union plumbers for several years but failed to act promptly or put the employer on notice.

Due to this delay and the potential prejudice to unrepresented employees, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to make a single employer declaration and dismissed both applications.

The applicant union applied under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration that the respondents, Century Store Fixtures Ltd., Century Interiors Ltd., and Jasper Construction Inc., be treated as one employer.

The union argued that Century, a unionized interior contractor, engaged in general contracting when its carpenters worked on Jasper's sites under Jasper's direction.

The Board found that Century and Jasper operated in different markets and were not engaged in associated or related activities.

The Board concluded there was no erosion of bargaining rights, as the carpenters were covered by the collective agreement at all times, and dismissed the application.

The complainant and several other professors filed complaints alleging that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 76 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act.

The complaints arose from an ongoing internal political dispute within the local union.

The complainants alleged that the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith by settling compensation issues arising from workload arbitration awards without their consent, by entering into a consent award that restricted who could act as a union steward during grievance meetings, and by negotiating changes to the collective agreement regarding union representation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaints, finding that the union had the legal authority to settle grievances and workload complaints without the individual grievors' consent.

The Board concluded that the union's decisions were based on reasonable grounds, were not improperly motivated, and were a legitimate exercise of its responsibility to manage the grievance process and administer the collective agreement.

During an examination conducted by a Labour Relations Officer, the intervener objected to the applicant's cross-examination questions, arguing they improperly referenced non-existent testimony to cast doubt on the witness's credibility.

The intervener submitted a letter confirming the objection.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to intervene, noting that its practice is to deal with such objections after receiving the Officer's report and the parties' submissions.

The Board further observed that questions raising issues of credibility are not generally improper.

The applicant union sought declarations that Duplex Electrical Ltd. was a successor employer to Deluxe Electrical Contractor Ltd. under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively, that they were related employers under subsection 1(4).

Deluxe, a unionized electrical contractor, ceased operations and transferred its tangible assets and the services of its principal to Duplex, a non-unionized parallel business.

The Board found that the transfer of assets and the principal's expertise in a bid-oriented market constituted a sale of a business under section 63.

Consequently, Duplex was bound by the collective agreement, and the subsection 1(4) application was dismissed as unnecessary.

During a union certification hearing, the Ontario Labour Relations Board considered whether to accept a membership card that indicated a $1.00 initiation fee was paid in two places, but had the word 'Nil' written in the confirmation of payment space.

The applicant union sought to introduce viva voce evidence to prove the dollar was paid.

The Board denied the request, reaffirming its longstanding policy that oral evidence is inadmissible to establish the substantive conditions of membership, including the payment of the initiation fee.

A majority of the Board concluded that the inconsistent information on the card created sufficient doubt about the payment, and therefore rejected the membership card.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the termination of a crane operator for an alleged failure to follow safe operating procedures resulting in a crane upset, both parties issued summonses duces tecum demanding the production of various documents.

The respondents objected to producing records for all cranes across the province, arguing it was an improper discovery attempt.

The Board applied the test that documents sought via a summons need only be 'arguably relevant' to the issues.

The Board directed the respondents to produce specific reports, log books, and policies related to the incident and the specific crane involved, but declined to order province-wide records or the union's training records at this preliminary stage, finding them overly broad or not yet demonstrably relevant.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to bargain in good faith.

Despite the union serving notice to bargain and sending four separate written invitations over four months to arrange negotiating meetings, the employer consistently refused to meet.

The employer insisted that the union first reply to a prior letter requesting particulars on how to join the union.

The Board found this to be a fundamental and blatant violation of the duty to bargain in good faith, noting that the union's failure to provide such information did not relieve the employer of its statutory obligations.

The Board declared that the employer failed to bargain in good faith and directed it to meet with the union forthwith.

The applicants sought to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union under section 57 of the Labour Relations Act.

They filed petitions signed by employees in support of the application.

The Board found that the primary applicant who circulated the petitions had a close working and familial relationship with a management supervisor, which was well known to the bargaining unit employees.

The Board concluded that reasonable employees would likely have a concern that management would become aware of who did or did not sign the petition.

Consequently, the Board could not be satisfied that the petitions represented a voluntary expression of employee wishes and dismissed the application, with one member dissenting.

The complainant, a journeyman sheetmetal worker and health and safety representative, alleged he was laid off in reprisal for his health and safety activities, contrary to section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The employer claimed the layoff was due to a shortage of work.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer failed to discharge its reverse onus to prove that no part of the decision to lay off the complainant was motivated by his legitimate health and safety activities.

The Board noted the foreman's negative reactions to the complainant's safety duties and the lack of prior performance complaints.

The complaint was allowed, and the employer was ordered to reinstate and compensate the complainant.

During a hearing into a work assignment dispute between the Millwrights and Ironworkers regarding the installation of a monorail conveyor system, a preliminary issue arose concerning the scope of admissible past practice evidence.

The Board had previously limited past practice evidence to the installation of monorail and package conveyor systems.

When the Ironworkers sought to adduce evidence regarding work on a bridge crane to demonstrate economy and efficiency, the Millwrights objected.

The Board upheld the objection, ruling that evidence of economy and efficiency from other employers must relate specifically to the two types of conveyor systems in dispute to be relevant and admissible.

The complainant made a second request for reconsideration of a Board decision that allowed his complaint to be withdrawn following a settlement.

The complainant argued that he was mentally incapacitated at the time he agreed to the settlement and was unable to properly represent himself.

The employer opposed the request, arguing for finality in legal proceedings.

The Board decided to schedule a hearing solely to determine whether it should reconsider its earlier decision based on the complainant's alleged mental incapacity, placing the burden on the complainant to establish his incapacity at the relevant time.

The union grieved the employer's refusal to hire two rodmen referred from the hiring hall.

The employer had discharged the grievors four years earlier for reporting to work under the influence of alcohol and maintained it was not obligated to rehire them.

The Board found that the employer acted unreasonably in refusing to hire the grievors, as they were not advised at the time of their 1985 discharges that they were ineligible for future rehire.

The grievance was allowed, with the Board remaining seized of damages.

The applicant union filed an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging a sale of a business from Steinberg to Ferlisi.

Steinberg had surrendered its lease for a supermarket premises, and the landlord subsequently leased the premises to Ferlisi, an operator of ethnic supermarkets.

Ferlisi also purchased unwanted equipment left by Steinberg at the landlord's insistence.

The Board found no nexus between Steinberg and Ferlisi, noting that Ferlisi's operation was targeted to a specific ethnic community and was an expansion of its own pre-existing business rather than a continuation of Steinberg's business.

The application was dismissed.

An employee sought reconsideration of a Board decision certifying the applicant union, alleging improper solicitation techniques and fraud.

The employee claimed another employee circulated a petition opposing the union but never intended to file it, acting as an agent for the union.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no evidence of fraud or abuse of process, and concluded the petitioning employee was merely a supporter who changed his mind.