Employment and Labour Law

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

The Board previously determined the appropriate bargaining unit description, which excluded employees at a specific location.

The respondent employer objected to counting the ballots, arguing that employees who subsequently moved into the bargaining unit should have their ballots counted.

The Board dismissed the objection, holding that the determination of employee support must be made as of the application date, regardless of subsequent workforce fluctuations.

The Board directed that the ballots be counted in accordance with its previous decision.

A dissenting board member argued that the bargaining unit should have been broader and that the subsequent events demonstrated the wisdom of a broader unit.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Two employees filed a petition objecting to the certification and requested an extension of the terminal date, arguing that the Notice to Employees had not been posted for an adequate period.

The Board found that the notice had been posted for 2.5 days prior to the terminal date, which was sufficient time for the objecting employees to file their petition.

As no employees were shown to be prejudiced by the posting period, the Board declined to extend the terminal date and granted the certificate.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of registered and graduate nurses, seeking to carve them out from an existing all-employee bargaining unit represented by the incumbent union.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act to permit the carve-out, finding no evidence that the incumbent union had failed to adequately represent the nurses and noting that the nurses had received a 48% pay increase over the period of representation.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union, alleging it breached section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by settling his suspension grievance without his consent and failing to process his internal appeal.

The union did not file a reply or attend the hearing.

The Board found that while a union is entitled to settle grievances, its failure to provide any explanation for its actions or fulfill its promises regarding the internal review process established an unanswered prima facie case of a breach of section 68.

The Board issued a declaration and ordered the union to provide a detailed written explanation for its decisions, but declined to award financial compensation due to the speculative nature of the loss.

The complainant, a boilermaker on long-term disability, filed a complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by settling his grievance regarding a purported termination.

The union raised a preliminary objection, arguing the complaint should be dismissed due to a 17-month delay and because the remedy sought would have no practical utility, as the employer was no longer on the site and the complainant remained unfit to work.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board exercised its discretion under section 89 of the Act to decline to inquire into the complaint, finding that the extreme delay and the academic nature of the requested relief did not warrant a hearing.

Two local unions applied for certification in the construction industry.

The applicants filed combination applications for membership and receipts, but the evidence of membership in one local union could not be applied to the other.

As a result, neither applicant had numerically sufficient membership evidence to be certified or to justify a representation vote.

The Board dismissed the applications without a hearing.

In a jurisdictional dispute complaint between the Boilermakers and the Labourers regarding demolition work, the Labourers sought to adduce viva voce evidence on a preliminary basis to challenge the Board's earlier ruling on the parameters of admissible past practice evidence.

The Board dismissed the request, holding that it has inherent jurisdiction to determine the relevance of evidence without first hearing it, and that evidence regarding the demolition of structures other than field-erected, steam-generating boilers in an operating environment is irrelevant to the specific work in dispute.

The union applied for a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that three fish distribution companies—Booth Fisheries, Van Home Fish Distributors, and Groupe La Mer—constitute a single employer.

The Board found that the companies were under the common control and direction of the same individual and engaged in associated or related activities.

Because bargaining unit work had been diverted from the unionized company to the newly created non-unionized company, the Board exercised its discretion to grant the related employer declaration to prevent the erosion of bargaining rights.

The Energy and Chemical Workers Union filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.

Prior to the hearing, the grievor requested to be substituted as the complainant.

At the hearing, the complainant union failed to appear.

The respondent objected to the grievor's substitution request.

The Board denied the substitution request and dismissed the complaint due to the complainant's failure to appear and prosecute the matter.

In a jurisdictional dispute complaint between the Millwrights and the U.A. over work on a paper making machine, the parties sought a preliminary ruling on the geographic scope of area past practice evidence.

The Millwrights argued for limiting evidence to the local Board area, while the U.A. argued for province-wide evidence due to the specialized nature of the work.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that while past practice is typically limited to the local Board area, the unique nature of the work and the overlapping territorial jurisdictions of the two local unions warranted an expanded scope.

The Board restricted the evidence to Board areas 17, 19, 21, 22, and the adjacent white area.

The complainant alleged that his employment was terminated in reprisal for raising health and safety concerns, contrary to section 24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The complainant sought an adjournment to compel a Ministry of Labour inspector to testify, which the Board denied due to statutory compellability restrictions and lack of notice.

On the merits, the Board found that the complainant's discharge was the result of an ongoing clash of management styles and his refusal to follow the employer's directions, rather than any health and safety work refusal or request for a Ministry inspection.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to properly represent him after he was discharged for 'over-booking' production.

The Board found that the union acted arbitrarily by failing to conduct a full investigation, failing to question the complainant about the details of the company's audit, and deciding not to proceed to arbitration without considering his plausible defense that his actions were sanctioned by management.

The Board ordered the union to take the grievance to arbitration.

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

The parties subsequently reached a collective agreement and the application was withdrawn.

However, the Board issued a ruling on an evidentiary issue raised during the hearing regarding the admissibility of evidence of negotiations that took place after the application was filed.

The majority of the Board held that the cut-off point for relevant evidence in a section 40a application is the date the application is filed, and evidence of post-application bargaining is generally inadmissible.

One Board member dissented.

The applicant requested the Board to make a declaration pursuant to section 84 of the Act, directing the respondent union to file a copy of its constitution and by-laws.

The union failed to respond to the Board's notice.

The Board granted the request and directed the union to forthwith file a copy of its constitution and by-laws.

The complainant, an individual employee, filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer contravened section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board dismissed the complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case, noting that section 64 protects the institutional rights of a trade union rather than the personal rights of individual employees.

The Board held that a complaint alleging interference with a trade union must be brought by the union itself, and the complainant had not alleged any discrimination or discharge for trade union activity.

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

The respondent employer failed to file a response and made a last-minute telephone request for an adjournment on the morning of the hearing without notifying the applicant.

The Board denied the adjournment request, noting the statutory requirement for expeditious resolution of such applications.

Proceeding on the merits, the Board found the respondent had failed to make reasonable or expeditious efforts to conclude a collective agreement and directed that the first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer and a group of objecting employees argued the application should be dismissed or a deferred representation vote held because the current workforce was not representative of the future workforce, as several labourers were expected to be laid off and new employees hired once the facility became fully operational.

The Board rejected this 'build-up' or 'build-down' argument, finding that the expected workforce changes did not warrant deferring the application or ordering a vote.

As the union had demonstrated membership support of over 55% and the remaining disputes over the bargaining unit description could not affect the union's right to certification, the Board granted interim certification.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer contravened the Labour Relations Act by discharging an employee who was the primary union organizer.

The employer claimed the employee had quit after leaving work early due to illness and leaving his keys and gas card on a desk.

The Board applied the reverse onus under section 89(5) of the Act, requiring the employer to prove its actions were free of anti-union animus.

The majority of the Board found the employer's conclusion that the employee quit was not credible and that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proof.

The Board ordered the employee reinstated with full compensation and directed the employer to post a notice of employees' rights.

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.

The respondent union moved to dismiss the application as untimely because it was filed after a conciliation officer had been appointed.

The intervener employer argued the appointment of the conciliation officer was a nullity due to defective service.

The Board held that administrative defects in service do not invalidate the appointment of a conciliation officer and that the employer had waived any irregularity by participating in conciliation.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant union applied to displace the incumbent union as the bargaining agent for the employees.

Following a pre-hearing representation vote won by the applicant, the incumbent union and an employee filed objections and an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the applicant distributed false and coercive campaign literature.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding no prima facie case of intimidation or coercion under sections 70 and 71 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also declined to order a new representation vote, concluding that the campaign propaganda, even if exaggerated or false, did not undermine the reliability of the secret ballot.