Employment and Labour Law

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit consisting solely of registered and graduate nursing assistants (RNAs) at the respondent hospital.

The hospital opposed the proposed unit, arguing it would cause undue fragmentation and that a broader unit including service or paramedical employees was appropriate.

The Board applied the test from Hospital for Sick Children and found that an RNA-only unit was not appropriate in these circumstances, as it would lead to undue fragmentation and potential labour relations problems, particularly given the overlap in functions and the hospital's existing employee relations structure.

The application was dismissed.

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

A representation vote was held, resulting in a tie.

The employer requested that an employee who was absent on the day of the vote be permitted to vote by proxy, by mail, or upon returning to work.

The Board denied the request, noting that the employer had agreed to the vote date and had signed a consent and waiver form immediately after the vote, agreeing to an immediate count and waiving any objections to the regularity of the balloting.

As not more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union, the application was dismissed.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to arbitration.

A key witness for the respondent repeatedly failed to appear and produce subpoenaed documents despite previous Board directives and a prior arrest warrant.

The Board found the witness in contempt of its directives and issued a further warrant for his arrest, directing him to appear at the next hearing date with the required payroll records.

The Board also directed the union to specify which documents remained outstanding and warned the witness of potential fines or imprisonment for continued non-compliance.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act against three non-profit corporations involved in the construction of a seniors' apartment building.

The Board found that the three corporations carried on related activities under common control and direction, and exercised its discretion to grant the related employer declaration to prevent the potential erosion of bargaining rights.

The Board also granted the application for certification, issuing certificates for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector and all other sectors in the appropriate geographic area.

The applicant union filed a complaint alleging that the respondent employer violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by bargaining in bad faith.

The parties had previously signed a voluntary recognition agreement defining the bargaining unit.

During negotiations for a collective agreement, the employer insisted on a significantly different scope and recognition clause and bargained the issue to impasse.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that while parties may discuss altering a bargaining unit, pressing the issue to impasse violates the duty to bargain in good faith.

The Board directed the employer to withdraw its proposed clause and confirm the agreed-upon bargaining unit description.

In an application for certification in the construction industry, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined whether certain individuals should be counted as employees in the proposed bargaining unit of electricians.

The Board found that an employee attending a training program on the application date was not 'at work' in the unit.

The Board also held that three employees performing electrical work on the employer's own premises, who were not qualified journeymen or apprentice electricians under the Trades Qualification Act, should not be included in the unit because they shared no real community of interest with qualified electricians who could lawfully work on construction sites for clients.

The applicant union applied under section 41 of the Labour Relations Act for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The parties had engaged in extensive bargaining over many months, culminating in a strike.

A major point of impasse was the employer's insistence on a discretionary 'pay for performance' wage system, which the union rejected in favour of a wage grid.

The Board found that the collective bargaining process had been unsuccessful and that the parties were in a 'logjam' from which they were unlikely to extricate themselves.

Without attributing fault, the Board exercised its discretion under section 41(2)(d) to direct the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto purchased Carefree Lodge, a home for the aged, from the CR Vint Foundation.

Following the purchase, Metro integrated the facility into its existing network of homes and intermingled the former Vint employees with its own employees.

A conflict arose between the Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA), which represented a small unit of nurses at the predecessor facility, and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), which represented all Metro employees, including nurses, under a broader collective agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that an intermingling of employees had occurred under section 63(6) of the Labour Relations Act.

To avoid undue fragmentation and promote rational collective bargaining, the Board terminated ONA's bargaining rights and declared that the nurses at Carefree Lodge would be covered by the CUPE all-employee collective agreement.

ONA's related unfair labour practice complaint was dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for a direction to arbitrate a first collective agreement.

The parties had reached an impasse in negotiations, primarily over the union's proposal for a union shop provision and the employer's proposal allowing foremen to perform bargaining unit work.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's uncompromising positions on these issues were taken without reasonable justification and reflected an underlying refusal to recognize the union's bargaining authority.

The Board directed the arbitration of the first collective agreement.

The complainant employer association alleged that the respondent union breached its duty to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union had insisted on a single province-wide collective agreement for the elevator industry and refused to negotiate a separate agreement for non-ICI work, while negotiating separate non-ICI agreements with individual employers during a lawful strike.

The Board found that the union was bargaining within the scope of its rights and did not violate the Act by pressing its position to impasse or by making interim agreements with individual employers.

The complaint was dismissed.

In an application for certification, the applicant trade union requested advance disclosure of the employer's Employee List prior to the scheduled meeting with a Labour Relations Officer.

The employer agreed to provide the list only if the union provided its Form 9 declaration concerning membership documents in return.

The Board declined to order immediate advance disclosure, holding that its current 'Waiver' process—whereby the list is provided to the union by a Waiver Officer after the parties' positions on the bargaining unit description are identified—adequately balances the union's need for preparation time with the employer's concerns about tactical advantages and gerrymandering.

Separate concurring and dissenting opinions were issued by the Board Members.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights, having previously withdrawn a similar application when it appeared she had insufficient support.

The respondent union brought a motion requesting the Board to exercise its discretion under section 105(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act to dismiss the second application and impose a bar on further applications, arguing that the representation issue had already been tested.

The Board dismissed the union's motion, finding that the representation issue was not truly determined in the first application and that balancing the interests of labour relations stability and the right to test representation favoured allowing the second application to proceed.

The union applied for certification to represent stagehands and sought a declaration that the three corporate respondents constituted a single employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board granted the single employer declaration, finding the respondents were engaged in associated or related businesses under common control.

However, applying the seven-factor true employer test, the Board found that the respondents were not the employer of the stagehands working on the application date, as direction, control, and the ultimate burden of remuneration rested with the third-party producer of the theatrical production.

Consequently, the certification application was dismissed.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer changed the grievor's shift and issued him written instructions because of his union activities and frequent grievances.

The employer maintained that the shift change was necessitated by the unexpected resignation of a registered technologist, requiring the grievor to be moved to a shift with adequate technical supervision as mandated by the Ministry of Health.

The Board found the employer's witnesses credible and concluded that the actions were motivated by bona fide operational considerations, not anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union sought certification and won a representation vote.

The respondent employer and a group of objecting employees alleged that the union engaged in intimidation and coercion during the vote, including holding a meeting at a Sikh Temple, making religious appeals, and congregating outside the polling area.

The Board found that while union supporters did congregate and electioneer outside the voting area, the evidence did not establish that their conduct was intimidatory, coercive, or destructive of the employees' freedom of choice.

The Board declined to set aside the vote and ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent general contractor violated the Provincial ICI Agreement by subcontracting electrical work to a non-union contractor.

The respondent argued it was not bound by the 1962 working agreement, asserting it was signed without authority, under duress, or was an invalid pre-hire agreement since the respondent never directly hired electricians.

The respondent alternatively argued the union had abandoned any bargaining rights.

The Board held the 1962 working agreement was validly executed, constituted a series of voluntary recognition agreements, and was not abandoned.

The grievance was upheld.

The respondent hospital requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision that found a bargaining unit comprised only of registered or graduate nursing assistants to be appropriate.

The respondent argued the Board placed undue emphasis on facilitating access to collective bargaining and should hear from other stakeholders.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no new evidence or arguments that could not have been raised previously, and noting that the respondent had full opportunity to address the issue during the original hearing.

A dissenting Board member would have granted the reconsideration request given the significant policy implications for the hospital sector.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees in the respondent's Leaf Division.

The parties agreed on most of the bargaining unit description but disputed whether seasonal employees should be included.

The respondent argued that the application was made out of season and seasonal employees should be excluded, relying on exceptions for canning and tobacco harvesting.

The Board found that the respondent's operations involved processing, not harvesting, and that the application was made in-season.

The Board concluded that seasonal employees shared a community of interest with permanent employees and included them in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of restaurant employees at a Cara Operations Limited location, seeking to displace the incumbent union, Local 88.

The parties agreed on all matters in dispute and waived a formal hearing.

Local 88 notified the Board that it wished to abandon its bargaining rights, leading the Board to declare that Local 88 no longer represented the employees.

Finding that the applicant is a trade union and that more than 55 percent of the employees in the agreed-upon bargaining unit were members, the Board ordered a certificate to issue to the applicant.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the respondents constituted one employer and were bound by certain collective agreements.

The Board found that the initial voluntary recognition agreement was valid and not the result of improper employer support.

Applying the criteria for a related employer declaration, the Board concluded that the entities were under common control and direction and engaged in related business activities in the electrical contracting industry.

The Board granted the section 1(4) declaration, binding the respondents to the Electricians Provincial Agreement and the high-rise residential appendix, but declined to bind them to the low-rise residential agreement as the union lacked bargaining rights for that work.