Employment and Labour Law

The respondent employer requested that the Board revoke its earlier certification decision and issue a new one after reviewing late-filed sample signatures.

The Board noted that while sample signatures are an important safeguard, expedition is crucial in labour relations matters.

The signatures were filed 19 days after the terminal date.

The Board declined to reconsider its decision, emphasizing the need for timely processing of certification applications.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer violated the Labour Relations Act by discharging one employee, demoting another, and engaging in anti-union communications during an organizing campaign.

The employer argued that the discharge was solely due to the employee's unauthorized taking of confidential employee phone numbers for the union's use.

The Board found that the severity of the discharge and the demotion were tainted by anti-union animus, as the employer failed to consider mitigating factors and used the incidents to deliver anti-union messages.

The Board also held that the employer's statements during mandatory employee meetings crossed the line from protected free speech into undue influence by linking unionization with job losses.

The complaint was allowed in part, with reinstatement ordered for the affected employees and a posting of a notice to employees.

The applicant union sought a declaration that there was a sale of a business from Gallant Painting to Lindsay Maintenance under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

Gallant Painting ceased operations after being organized by the union.

Shortly after, Lindsay Maintenance, a mechanical maintenance contractor, hired the former owner of Gallant Painting to manage a newly created painting division.

The Board found that the essential elements of the maintenance painting business resided in the expertise and reputation of the former owner.

By hiring him, Lindsay Maintenance acquired the predecessor's key asset, enabling it to be placed on a major customer's bidder's list and obtain work.

The Board concluded this constituted a sale of a business and declared the union the bargaining agent for the painting division employees.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint and a related employer application under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act following the employer's decision to introduce desktop publishing technology at The Mississauga News, which effectively closed the unionized composing room at the production division.

The Board dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint, finding the technological change was motivated by legitimate economic and business reasons rather than anti-union animus.

However, the Board granted the related employer declaration, finding that the production division and The Mississauga News carried on related activities under common control and direction, and declared The Mississauga News bound to the composing room collective agreement.

The union applied under section 81 of the College Collective Bargaining Act for a determination of whether certain persons were employees.

The Board examined the duties and responsibilities of eight individuals to determine if they exercised managerial functions or were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

The Board found that three individuals were employees within the meaning of the Act, while five were excluded due to their managerial or confidential duties.

One Board member dissented regarding the status of one individual.

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights under section 57(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent union raised a preliminary objection that the application was untimely because a collective agreement had already been reached.

The Board found that the union and the employer had reached a final resolution of the collective agreement terms on July 11, prior to the filing of the termination application on July 12.

The Board rejected the employer's argument that the agreement was conditional on the resolution of outstanding unfair labour practice complaints.

Consequently, the termination application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act concerning a work assignment dispute.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was untimely under the collective agreement.

The Board found that the grievance was untimely, as it was filed more than 60 days after the disputed work was completed.

However, the Board exercised its discretion under section 44(6) of the Act to extend the time limits, finding that the delay was caused by a reasonable mistake regarding the proper grieving party, the employer was aware of the ongoing dispute, and resolving the grievance would benefit the parties' relationship.

The respondent employer requested that the Board reconsider its 1986 decision certifying the union, arguing that the employer is engaged in radio communications and falls within federal jurisdiction.

The Board declined to reconsider the decision, noting that the employer participated in the original certification application without raising the issue, and five years had passed since the certificate was issued.

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 parties had resolved all issues except for a subcontracting provision.

During bargaining, the respondent municipality stated it did not intend to hire members of the applicant union, as it felt obligated to assign the work to its own employees represented by another union (CUPE).

The Board found that the municipality's approach, combined with its refusal to agree to a subcontracting provision, constituted a refusal to recognize the bargaining authority of the applicant union.

The Board directed that the first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

The applicant union sought certification for its traditional craft bargaining unit, arguing that the respondent's shipbuilding and repair business fell within the definition of the construction industry under the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant relied on recent amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which deemed shipbuilding a 'project'.

The Board ruled that repairing or building ships in dry docks does not constitute a business in the construction industry under the Labour Relations Act.

Following this ruling, the applicant withdrew its application with leave.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of carpenters engaged in the installation of exterior cladding systems.

The respondent employer argued for a broader unit of all carpenters and carpenters' apprentices.

The Board ruled that in the construction industry, a craft union must seek to represent all members of its craft employed by the respondent, and therefore rejected the applicant's restricted description.

The Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and appointed an officer to inquire into the employment status of certain individuals characterized by the respondent as independent contractors.

The respondent employer requested an adjournment of an unfair labour practice complaint hearing because its key witness, a lawyer involved in related proceedings, was unavailable.

The Board noted that the witness had not been summonsed by the respondent and chose to attend another proceeding.

However, the Board granted the adjournment on the condition that the respondent undertake not to take any reprisals against employees summonsed by the union to attend Board proceedings, and that it remove any disciplinary action already taken against the grievors.

The Board also directed the respondent to post copies of the decision in the workplace.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for journeymen and apprentice sheet metal workers employed by the respondent in the construction industry.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant had the requisite membership support of more than fifty-five per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board issued certificates to the applicant for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector in the Province of Ontario, and for all other sectors in the specified geographic areas.

The applicant union applied for relief under the Labour Relations Act.

After initial delays in scheduling, the Board set five hearing dates in September 1991.

The parties subsequently agreed to adjourn four of the five dates due to scheduling conflicts.

The Board cancelled the agreed-upon dates, directing the matter to proceed on the single remaining date, and warned the parties that further hearing dates would likely not be available until March 1992 due to their conduct.

The Labourers' Union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the operation of heavy machinery on a demolition project.

The Operating Engineers raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because they had not required the employer to assign the work to them.

The Board found that the Operating Engineers had made an explicit demand to the subcontractor, Greenspoon, for the work in question, both during a meeting and in a private conversation.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the preliminary objection, concluding it had jurisdiction to consider the complaint.

The applicant union filed a grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act alleging that the respondent employer improperly assigned the assembly of a metal meter shed to a mixed crew of carpenters and labourers instead of sheet metal workers.

The intervener union argued that the work was properly assigned based on established practice.

The Board determined that the matter was essentially a jurisdictional dispute that should be dealt with under section 91 of the Act to allow all interested parties, including the unrepresented labourers' union, to participate.

The Board adjourned the section 124 application for 30 days to permit the filing of a jurisdictional dispute.

The applicant employee filed an application for termination of bargaining rights (decertification) against the respondent union.

The Board found that the petition did not express the voluntary wishes of the employees, as the applicant was closely associated with another employee who was perceived as linked to management, and the employer had previously demonstrated anti-union animus by allowing anti-union notices to remain posted and failing to discipline employees who engaged in an anti-union strike.

The application was dismissed, with one Board member dissenting.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's wholesale food business.

The union filed documentary evidence of membership for more than 55% of the employees.

A group of objecting employees filed a petition opposing certification, which included signatures from employees who had previously signed union cards.

The Board denied the objectors' request for an indefinite adjournment due to the medical unavailability of their principal witness, noting the prejudicial delay it would cause.

The Board found the petition unreliable because it was circulated with the active involvement of the owner's brother and was not supported by cross-examined testimony.

The Board also determined that two disputed employees did not exercise managerial functions.

The Board granted the union's application for certification without a representation vote.

In a certification application, the respondent requested that the matter proceed directly to a hearing before the Board rather than continuing with an examination by a Labour Relations Officer, citing the number of witnesses and anticipated issues of credibility.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the request, noting that credibility issues can usually be resolved by scrutinizing the verbatim transcript of the Officer's proceedings, and directed that the Officer's inquiry continue.

The complainant alleged that the union breached sections 52, 53, and 85 of the Labour Relations Act by negotiating and ratifying a new collective agreement before the expiry of the existing one.

The union agreed to provide the requested financial statement once approved.

The Board found that section 53 allows parties to give notice to bargain 90 days before expiry but does not prohibit earlier bargaining.

Section 52 prevents early termination of an agreement without Board consent but allows parties to revise terms by mutual consent.

Since the existing agreement would still expire on its original date, the Board found no violation of the Act and dismissed the complaint.