Employment and Labour Law

The union applied for certification to represent electricians working on a construction site where the respondent was the general contractor.

After the original electrical subcontractor went bankrupt, the respondent made an interim arrangement with the electricians to continue working at an hourly rate until a new subcontractor was found.

The Board found that during this interim period, the electricians were dependent contractors and therefore employees of the respondent for the purposes of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board granted the certification application.

However, the Board dismissed the union's unfair labour practice complaint, finding that the subsequent lay-off of the electricians was due to the hiring of a new subcontractor and not motivated by anti-union animus.

During a union certification campaign, the respondent employer alleged that an employee did not pay the required one dollar for union membership, claiming a union organizer paid it instead.

The employee testified she paid the dollar, but admitted to making prior inconsistent statements suggesting she had not.

The Board declined to rely on the prior inconsistent statements as evidence of the truth of their contents, finding them unreliable and noting the general legal rule against such reliance.

With no affirmative evidence that the dollar was not paid, the Board dismissed the non-pay allegation.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of full-time drivers, while the respondent employer argued for an all-employee unit including both full-time and part-time drivers to prevent fragmentation.

The Board applied its normal practice of excluding part-time employees at the request of either party, finding no serious labour relations problems that would render the applicant's proposed unit inappropriate.

The Board certified the applicant for the full-time unit.

One Board member dissented, arguing for a single unit since the only difference between the groups was hours worked.

The Ministry of Health revoked the license of Saint Elizabeth Nursing Home and took over its operation under the Health Facilities Special Orders Act.

The Ministry subsequently awarded a portion of the nursing home's licensed beds to Shalom Village through a request for proposals process.

The applicant union argued that this constituted a transfer of an undertaking from the Crown to Shalom Village under the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the license was the essence of the nursing home business and that its transfer, along with the transfer of residents, constituted a transfer of part of an undertaking from the Crown.

A declaration of successor rights was issued.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration against the respondent municipality, alleging that work covered by their collective agreement was being performed by non-union members.

Two subcontractors, Bemar and Framing Design, sought to intervene in the proceedings and requested an adjournment to retain counsel.

The Board denied the adjournment, finding the subcontractors had sufficient notice.

The Board also denied intervener status, ruling that the subcontractors' interests were purely commercial and arose from separate contracts with the respondent, rather than from the collective agreement at issue.

The subcontractors subsequently requested reconsideration, which the Board directed them to support with written submissions.

The complainant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to notify him of a meeting where his discharge grievance was dropped, and by failing to present medical evidence of his mental illness.

The union admitted the breach.

The Board ordered the grievance to proceed to arbitration.

The Board declined the complainant's request for sole carriage of the grievance, finding that the union's potential liability for damages did not warrant removing its normal role, but ordered that the complainant have a say in selecting the arbitrator and that joint counsel be retained.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of the respondent's drivers in the Sudbury, Sturgeon Falls, and Espanola districts.

The respondent employer argued that the only appropriate unit would encompass all its drivers in the entire Northern Ontario region.

The Board found that the applicant's proposed unit was appropriate for collective bargaining, noting that it did not present serious labour relations problems and that the distances in Northern Ontario provided disincentives to a region-wide unit.

A certificate was issued for the applicant's proposed unit, with one Board Member dissenting.

In a jurisdictional dispute over concrete finishing work, the Board ruled on several preliminary objections regarding the admissibility of evidence and the pleading of material facts.

The Board held that the Cement Masons could not lead evidence of area practice because they failed to include job lists in their pre-hearing brief, as required by Practice Note #15.

The Board also restricted area practice evidence to the ICI sector but allowed evidence of province-wide employer practice.

The Board refused to restrict evidence of employer practice based on the specific bargaining relationships of the employers.

The applicants applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union argued the decertification petition was not voluntary because it was circulated on company premises during working hours and some employees were told it was merely to keep their options open.

The Board found no evidence of managerial involvement or support for the petition.

The Board concluded the petition was voluntary and directed a representation vote.

The applicant trade union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board, alleging the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement.

The respondent denied being bound by the agreement, arguing it did not hold relevant bargaining rights.

The Board found that the respondent was a member of the Sarnia Construction Association and was therefore bound by the collective agreements entered into by the association, including the provincial collective agreement.

The matter was directed to be relisted for hearing on the remaining issues.

The applicant union sought a declaration under subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that R.R. Projects Inc. and Golden Arm Flooring Inc. be treated as one employer.

The Board found that the two companies carried on related activities in the resilient flooring contracting business under common control or direction, noting their interrelationship of operations, common management, and financial control.

The Board granted the declaration to protect the union's bargaining rights and directed Golden Arm Flooring Inc. to pay unsatisfied damages previously awarded against R.R. Projects Inc.

A group of Registered Nursing Assistants (RNAs) filed a complaint alleging that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

The RNAs claimed the union misled them by failing to disclose that a grievance settlement providing additional compensation might be reached shortly after they signed releases to obtain immediate severance pay.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union had no reason to anticipate a settlement at the time the releases were signed.

The Board concluded that the union's failure to mention the remote possibility of a monetary settlement was an honest oversight and did not constitute arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.

The applicant sought to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The Board found that the petition in support of the termination application was not voluntary.

The Board noted that a prior petition had been circulated with management's knowledge and involvement, and that the union had originally been certified under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act due to egregious employer unfair labour practices.

Given the lingering effects of the employer's conduct and the circumstances surrounding the petitions, the termination application was dismissed.

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

Following the vote, disputes arose regarding voter eligibility.

The Board determined that 31 employees were eligible to vote, and the vote resulted in 30 votes for the intervener and none for the applicant.

The applicant also filed a second application for certification and requested consolidation, section 8 relief, and reconsideration of voter eligibility rulings, all of which the Board denied.

The respondent and intervener requested a bar on the second application, which the Board also denied.

As the applicant did not receive more than fifty percent of the votes, the application for certification was dismissed.

The complainant filed a reprisal complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The day before the scheduled hearing, the complainant's counsel requested an adjournment, citing a lack of disclosure from the Ministry of Labour.

The respondent opposed the request.

The complainant failed to attend the hearing.

The Board denied the adjournment request, noting that labour relations matters must proceed expeditiously and the complainant had not demonstrated reasonable efforts to prepare or obtain evidence.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the complaint.

The complainant, a union member, alleged that his union violated sections 69 and 70 of the Labour Relations Act by removing him from his steady projectionist job after the theatre reduced its operating hours.

The union's executive board decided to eliminate the third steady position and split the remaining hours between the two senior projectionists.

When the complainant attempted to appeal this decision to the general membership, the union presented the matter for information only and refused to hold a vote on his specific request.

The Board found no violation of section 69, as the employer did not make the removal decision.

However, the Board held that the union acted arbitrarily, contrary to section 70, by denying the complainant his right to have the general membership vote on his request to remain in the position with reduced hours.

The Board directed the union to allow the complainant to present his case to the membership for a vote.

In an application for certification by Shopmen's Local 834, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dealt with several preliminary motions.

The Board denied the respondent's request for an adjournment to give notice to other parties, ruling the issue was raised too late.

The Board also denied a request to extend the terminal date due to an intervener application, maintaining its practice of using the original application's dates.

Finally, the Board refused to defer the certification applications pending the outcome of related grievance referrals.

A Board Officer was appointed to conduct a record check regarding the bargaining unit composition.

The complainant filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the union, identical to a prior complaint that had been withdrawn following a meeting with a Labour Relations Officer.

The union raised a preliminary objection that the withdrawal constituted a final settlement of the matter.

The Board found that the prior complaint had been settled during the officer's meeting, rejecting the complainant's assertion that he withdrew it only to refile and obtain a different officer.

The preliminary objection was upheld and the complaint was dismissed.

One Board Member dissented.

The applicant union applied for direction of settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration under the Labour Relations Act.

Subsequently, the union applied under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA), asserting the respondent employer is a hospital.

The employer argued the Board should dismiss or defer the first contract application.

The Board declined to dismiss the application for abuse of process but adjourned the hearing pending the Minister's decision on the respondent's status under the HLDAA, noting the balance of convenience favoured avoiding a potentially null proceeding.

The applicant parent union assumed control of its subordinate local union on April 1, 1991, but failed to notify the Board within 60 days as required by section 84 of the Labour Relations Act.

The parent union notified the Board on May 13, 1992, after the legally permitted 12-month limit for the trusteeship had expired.

The Board treated the late notification as a request for an extension of the trusteeship under section 84(2).

The Board directed the parent union to notify the affected members of the local union and gave the members until July 15, 1992, to file any written opposition to the extension request.