Employment and Labour Law

The applicant union sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act against two companies, one performing general contracting and the other building specialized water storage tanks.

The respondents conceded they were under common control and direction but argued the Board should decline to exercise its discretion.

The Board found no evidence of an erosion of the union's bargaining rights or a scheme to transfer work from the unionized entity to the non-unionized entity.

The parallel operations existed for bona fide business reasons prior to the union acquiring bargaining rights.

The application and related grievances were dismissed.

The complainant union and employee alleged that the respondent college discharged the employee because he supported and was expected to testify in another employee's grievance arbitration, contrary to section 80(1) of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act.

The Board found that the employee's attitude and performance had deteriorated significantly after he was bumped from a full-time position, characterized by chronic lateness and insubordination.

The Board concluded that the discharge was the inevitable result of the employee's poor conduct and insubordination, culminating in a confrontation with his supervisor, and was not motivated by anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union filed an application for certification by registered mail on a Sunday.

The respondent employer and objecting employees argued that the Board should depart from its standard construction industry practice of assessing membership support based solely on the employees at work on the application date, arguing it would be inequitable given the weekend filing and the employer's normally larger weekday workforce.

The Board reviewed its jurisprudence regarding the 'date of application' rule in the construction industry and declined to depart from its established practice, finding no compelling reason to do so.

The matter was directed to be scheduled for a hearing on the remaining issues, including the union's request for certification under section 8.

The union filed an application under the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act after the Ministry of Natural Resources contracted out the operation of a provincial park campground to a community college.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to grant a declaration.

The Board held that the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act exclusively governs the collective bargaining relationships of community colleges, and the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act does not apply to transfers from the Crown to a community college.

The union applied under the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act, alleging that the Ministry of Natural Resources transferred an undertaking to a partnership contracted to perform a creel survey.

The Board found that the creel survey was an undertaking and that the partnership was an 'employer' within the meaning of the Act, regardless of whether it hired employees.

The Board declared that the undertaking was transferred and the partnership was bound by the collective agreement between the union and the Crown.

The applicant employer sought a declaration that the respondent employees engaged in an unlawful strike by refusing to cross a picket line established by another union at a construction site.

The respondents conceded the facts but argued their refusal was justified due to threats of violence on the picket line, analogizing to the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board found no legal justification for the unlawful strike, granted the declaration, and issued cease and desist directions.

The complainant union filed a complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act alleging the respondent employer violated section 43 by failing to remit deducted union dues.

The parties had previously settled a grievance on the issue by agreeing to submit the dispute to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

At the hearing, the Board raised the issue of its jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the complaint, holding that section 43 only requires the inclusion of a dues deduction provision in a collective agreement, while enforcement of such provisions falls under section 50 and must be resolved through grievance arbitration under section 44.

The Board noted that its statutory jurisdiction cannot be expanded by the agreement of the parties.

The parties requested a consent adjournment of a scheduled hearing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted the adjournment but issued a decision expressing concern over the parties' repeated practice of requesting adjournments with minimal notice.

The Board emphasized that late adjournment requests squander limited institutional resources and warned that future requests lacking substantive reasons might be denied, even if on consent.

The matter was adjourned sine die.

During an application for certification, the employer and objecting employees raised several allegations of impropriety regarding the union's membership evidence and organizing campaign.

The Board refused to entertain the first set of allegations, finding them untimely under Rule 72 and failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board also refused to hear a second set of allegations because the parties failed to comply with an order to provide specific particulars, including identifying the disputed membership cards.

Finally, the Board denied the employer's request to have a handwriting analyst examine the membership evidence, holding that such access would violate the confidentiality protections under section 111(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

Ultimately, the parties agreed to dismiss the application.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The respondent employer alleged that the union's membership evidence was obtained through intimidation or coercion, in violation of section 70 of the Labour Relations Act, because a union representative told an employee he would be removed from the site if he did not sign a union card.

The Board found that the union representative was merely explaining the consequences of enforcing a sub-contract clause in the general contractor's collective agreement.

The Board concluded there was no improper conduct, accepted the membership evidence, and issued the certificates.

The complainant, a registered nurse, filed a complaint alleging that his union breached its duty of fair representation and engaged in intimidation and coercion when it settled his termination grievance prior to arbitration.

The complainant had been terminated after refusing to undergo a psychiatric assessment following a dispute over scheduling and pay.

The union and the hospital reached a settlement which the complainant signed, but he later sought to repudiate it, claiming he was pressured.

The Board dismissed the complaint without a full hearing, finding that the union's advice regarding the merits of the grievance, the risks of arbitration, and the benefits of settlement did not constitute arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct, nor did it amount to intimidation.

The complainant union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of work by a subcontractor.

The respondent union had initially filed a grievance demanding the work, but later withdrew it.

The respondent union then brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction or should decline to inquire into the complaint since there was no longer a demand to change the work assignment.

The Board held that, assuming it had jurisdiction, it was appropriate to exercise its discretion not to inquire further into the complaint because the underlying dispute had disappeared with the withdrawal of the grievance.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicants sought declarations terminating bargaining rights.

At the hearing, the Board raised concerns regarding the named respondents, sufficiency of notice, and bargaining unit descriptions, noting that affiliated bargaining agents had not been named or served.

The parties agreed to adjourn the hearing to allow the applicants to name and serve the appropriate parties, without prejudice to the respondents' right to argue the applications were void ab initio.

The Board adjourned the hearing and directed that related unfair labour practice and grievance files be scheduled to be heard together with these applications.

Following a finding that the respondent breached section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to disclose its intention to shut down a turbine during collective bargaining, the Board held a hearing to determine the appropriate remedy.

The complainant union sought monetary compensation for lost wages, lost opportunities for increased wages, and expenses incurred.

The Board dismissed the claims for monetary damages, finding insufficient evidence that the union could have negotiated a better outcome or retained the positions had the disclosure been made.

The Board issued a declaration of the breach but declined to award further compensatory relief.

One Board Member dissented, stating he would have awarded the compensatory relief claimed.

The applicant union filed a grievance against the respondent general contractor regarding the subcontracting of wire mesh placement to a non-affiliated subcontractor.

The respondent subsequently directed the subcontractor to employ the applicant's members.

The Board determined that the respondent acted as an agent for the applicant union in requiring the subcontractor to alter the work assignment.

Consequently, the Board held that the circumstances constituted a jurisdictional dispute within the meaning of section 91(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The parties requested a last-minute adjournment of a scheduled hearing on consent.

The Board granted the adjournment sine die for a period not to exceed one year, but issued a strong warning to the parties and counsel about the squandering of the Board's limited resources caused by late adjournment requests.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent part-time employees at a single movie theatre owned by the respondent.

The respondent argued that a single theatre was not an appropriate bargaining unit and that the unit should encompass all of its theatres in the region or city to avoid undue fragmentation.

The Board reviewed its jurisprudence on single-branch bargaining units and concluded that, while broader units have advantages, requiring a multi-branch unit would create an obstacle to organizing.

The Board found the single theatre to be an appropriate bargaining unit and granted the certificate.

The applicant, Tactix Construction Limited, initially applied for a related employer declaration under subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act but later sought to withdraw it.

The Board refused the withdrawal and allowed the respondent union to pursue its own claim for a related employer declaration involving Tactix and four other corporations.

The Board found that the statutory preconditions for a related employer declaration were met for all five corporations.

However, the Board exercised its discretion to declare only four of the corporations (Tactix, Mark/Barry, Stash, and Jilsen) as one employer, dismissing the application with respect to Danand Investments Limited because its common control had ceased in 1985.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether a conciliation officer must be appointed following the sale of a hospital business.

The predecessor employer and the union had already completed conciliation and constituted an arbitration board under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act prior to the sale.

The Board advised the Minister that under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, the union's notice to bargain to the successor employer has the same effect as certification, entitling the parties to utilize all dispute resolution mechanisms anew.

Consequently, the previously constituted arbitration board has no jurisdiction over the successor employer, and the Minister is required to appoint a conciliation officer.

An employee sought reconsideration of the Board's 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 simply changed his mind.