Employment and Labour Law

The applicant union sought certification to represent limousine drivers, displacing the incumbent Teamsters union.

The respondent employers argued the applicant was not a trade union and was employer-dominated.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the applicant met the definition of a trade union, an employer (a co-operative corporation formed by the drivers' association to compete in the limousine business) had participated in its formation and administration.

Consequently, section 13 of the Labour Relations Act barred the Board from certifying the applicant, and the applications were dismissed.

The applicant union filed an application for certification to displace the incumbent union.

During the application process, the employer and the incumbent union negotiated and signed a renewal collective agreement.

The applicant argued that this violated the statutory freeze under section 81(2) of the Labour Relations Act and constituted unlawful employer support under section 49.

The Board held that the statutory freeze does not suspend the duty to bargain between an employer and an incumbent union.

The negotiation and conclusion of a renewal agreement do not, in and of themselves, violate the freeze or constitute unlawful employer support.

The application for certification was dismissed as untimely.

The Operative Plasterers' and Cement Masons' International Association, Local 598 requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision that dismissed its unfair labour practice complaint against Metro Concrete Floors and determined voter eligibility in a certification application by the Labourers' International Union, Local 506.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no obvious error, no new evidence, and that Local 598 had a full opportunity to make representations at the original hearing.

The Board also declined to apply a new voter eligibility practice retroactively to a case where the vote had already been taken.

The applicant filed a subsequent application for a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the respondent unions after the terminal date of an earlier, identical application by a different employee.

The Board deferred the subsequent application pending the resolution of the earlier one, pursuant to section 105(3) of the Act.

The applicant requested reconsideration, arguing a breach of natural justice and procedural errors.

The Board denied the request, finding that the parties had a full opportunity to make written submissions and that deferral was appropriate to avoid duplicative proceedings.

The respondent Steinberg Inc. obtained an ex parte order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) from the Quebec Superior Court staying all proceedings against it.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board considered whether this stay order applied to ongoing unfair labour practice and related employer proceedings before the Board.

The Board held that the broad language of the CCAA and the court order encompassed its adjudicative processes, notwithstanding the remedial nature of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board further held that the proceedings could not be severed to continue against the co-respondent A&P unless the applicants withdrew their complaints against Steinberg.

Following a finding that the complainant was unlawfully discharged for raising safety concerns after a workplace injury, the Board held a hearing to determine compensation.

The Board awarded $500 in damages for mental distress, finding that the abrupt and unlawful termination exacerbated the complainant's existing post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Board also awarded $1,700 for dental work that would have been covered by the employer's benefits plan had the complainant not been unlawfully discharged, as well as outstanding vacation pay.

One Board member dissented on the award of mental distress damages.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of a business and intermingling of employees occurred between the respondent companies, and requested a representation vote.

The Board found that a sale of a business had occurred when Union Felt purchased Almac Industries Inc. and subsequently integrated operations.

The Board concluded that intermingling of employees had taken place and ordered a representation vote to determine which of the two trade unions should represent the combined bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the respondent employer, which installs and maintains cellular phone antennae and support structures.

The respondent raised a preliminary constitutional objection, arguing its operations were integral to federal telecommunications undertakings (Bell Cellular and Cantel) and thus subject to federal labour relations jurisdiction.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the test from Northern Telecom and found that the respondent's day-to-day operations were extensively integrated with and vital to the functioning of the federal cellular networks.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the respondent's labour relations fell within federal jurisdiction and dismissed the applications for lack of jurisdiction.

In a construction industry certification application, the applicant requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

Because no employees were at work on the terminal date, applying the Board's customary dual-date voter eligibility rules would result in no eligible voters.

The Board held a hearing to determine the appropriate voter eligibility date.

The Board departed from its traditional practice, ruling that in pre-hearing construction applications, voter eligibility will be determined solely based on those at work in the voting constituency on the application date, to reflect the transient nature of the construction workforce and reduce the potential for gerrymandering.

The applicant union sought to withdraw two applications for certification after receiving the employer's list of employees.

The respondent employer objected, requesting that the applications be dismissed, a six-month bar be imposed on future applications, and the union's membership count be disclosed.

The Board dismissed the applications rather than allowing them to be withdrawn, consistent with its practice when an examiner has met with the parties.

However, the Board declined to impose a six-month bar or disclose the membership count, noting that the issue of abuse of process could be addressed if a subsequent application is filed.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint and an application for a declaration of an unlawful lock-out, alleging the employer threatened to move part of its operations to a new location not covered by the collective agreement unless the union agreed to concessions.

The employer subsequently moved the Packaged Gas plant to a new location in Oakville.

The Board found that the scope clause of the existing collective agreement, which covered all employees at the employer's plant in Oakville, applied to the new facility.

Furthermore, the Board held that the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith by failing to disclose its plans for technological change and relocation during the recent round of collective bargaining when specifically asked by the union.

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

The union's constitution restricted membership to employees of a different company, and the union had no established practice of admitting persons to membership without regard to these eligibility requirements.

Applying section 105(4) of the Labour Relations Act and the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, the Board found that the employees could not be considered members of the applicant.

The application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant union sought declarations that Economy Store Fixtures Limited and Flair Woodworking Ltd. constituted a single employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, and that there had been a sale of a business from Economy to Flair under section 64.

The key individual, Frid, had controlled Economy, which went bankrupt shortly after his departure.

Frid subsequently incorporated Flair, purchased Economy's equipment at auction, and operated a similar business from the same premises.

The Board found that Frid was the key dynamic force in both companies and that Flair was essentially Economy reborn.

The Board granted the declarations, finding both a related employer relationship and a sale of business, thereby preserving the union's bargaining rights.

The applicant union and respondent employer were unable to resolve monetary issues for a first collective agreement and agreed to have the Ontario Labour Relations Board arbitrate the dispute under section 41(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board determined the outstanding issues, including wages, signing bonuses, banquet gratuities, and the term of the agreement.

Taking into account the recession's impact on the hotel industry and the employees' minimum wage status, the Board awarded a two-year term, a wage grid based on length of service, specific signing bonuses for full-time and part-time employees, and excluded porters from banquet gratuities.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The parties disputed the appropriate bargaining unit and whether the application was a displacement application, as the applicant argued the intervener did not have a valid collective agreement with the respondent employer.

The Board directed that the pre-hearing representation vote be taken without delaying to resolve the disputes, in accordance with its standard practice.

The Board ordered that the ballot boxes be sealed and challenged ballots segregated pending further direction.

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

A group of employees filed a petition opposing the certification.

The Board found that the union had sufficient membership support for automatic certification, subject to the voluntariness of the petition.

After hearing evidence from the objectors, the union moved for a non-suit.

The Board granted the motion, finding the petition involuntary because it was circulated with the assistance of individuals closely associated with management and in a context where the employer had expressed opposition to the union.

As the petition was given no weight, the Board issued a certificate to the applicant union.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer terminated five night crew employees due to their involvement in an organizing campaign.

The employer claimed the terminations were part of a chain-wide cost-reduction strategy.

The Board found the employer's actions inconsistent with its prior policies and concluded the terminations were tainted by anti-union animus, violating the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the employees reinstated with compensation.

Furthermore, finding that the employer's substantial misconduct would prevent the ascertainment of employees' true wishes in a representation vote, the Board granted certification pursuant to section 8 of the Act.

During a hearing for certification, a related employer declaration, and a grievance referral, the unrepresented respondents insisted on video-taping the proceedings.

The Board prohibited the use of a video camera, finding it intrusive, disruptive, and not required for a fair hearing.

The Board also denied the respondents' subsequent request for an adjournment to seek legal advice regarding the video-taping ruling, emphasizing the need for expedition in labour relations matters.

Finally, the Board directed the respondents to produce commercial documents relevant to the related employer application, noting their evidentiary onus under section 1(5) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant sought to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights in the ICI sector of the construction industry.

The union argued that the applicant and other individuals supporting the application were not 'employees' in the bargaining unit because they were not members in good standing and were not hired through the union's hiring hall, in violation of the collective agreement.

The Board applied the April Waterproofing principle, finding that because the union had actively asserted its rights under the collective agreement by filing a grievance prior to the termination application, the continued employment of these individuals contravened the agreement.

Consequently, they were not considered employees in the bargaining unit for the purpose of the application, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant union sought certification and won a representation vote.

Following the vote, four employees whose names were not on the agreed voters' list sought to have their segregated ballots counted.

The employer and objectors also alleged that a union membership card contained a forged signature and that the required $1 fee was not paid.

The Board held that the four segregated ballots would not be counted, as the parties had agreed to the voters' list and the employees had adequate notice to raise their concerns earlier.

Regarding the membership card, the Board permitted the union to adduce handwriting expert evidence, concluded the signature was genuine, and found the $1 fee was a bona fide loan from the collector.

The union was certified.