Employment and Labour Law

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit composed solely of Registered and Graduate Nursing Assistants (RNAs) at the responding hospital.

The hospital opposed the application, arguing that an RNA-only unit would lead to undue fragmentation and that a broader service or paramedical unit was appropriate.

The Board reviewed the specific facts, including the lack of interchange between RNAs and other classifications, the historical anomaly of the RNA role, and the employees' right to self-organization.

The majority of the Board concluded that the RNA-only unit was appropriate and granted the certification application.

One Board member dissented, citing concerns over fragmentation in the health care sector.

The applicant union sought interim relief pending the final disposition of an unfair labour practice discharge complaint.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found an arguable case for the relief requested and that the balance of harm favoured the applicant.

The Board directed the responding party employer to reinstate the two discharged employees on an interim basis and to post a notice to employees regarding their rights under the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant union sought to certify a site-specific bargaining unit of employees at one of the employer's many locations in Metropolitan Toronto.

The employer argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should encompass all of its locations across the municipality due to the integrated nature of its operations and employee interchange.

The Board found that the single-location unit proposed by the union was not appropriate for collective bargaining, consistent with its prior jurisprudence regarding multi-location service enterprises.

The application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant unions sought declarations that the responding parties, Malvern Drywall Systems Ltd. and Lakeridge Acoustics, were related employers under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, and referred grievances for arbitration.

The responding parties failed to attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

The Board found that the two businesses carried on related activities under the common control and direction of the same principal.

The Board granted the section 1(4) declaration, binding Lakeridge to the collective agreements of Malvern, and ordered the responding parties to pay outstanding remittances and previous settlement amounts to the unions.

The applicant unions filed grievances alleging that the responding party violated the Mainline Pipeline Agreement by failing to apply it to the manufacture and supply of concrete from a permanent batching plant in Cochrane.

The concrete was supplied to a contractor manufacturing concrete weights for a pipeline project.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the manufacture and supply of concrete from a permanent facility is not construction work covered by the Pipeline Agreement, distinguishing it from portable batching plants used on-site.

One Board Member dissented in part regarding the Teamsters' agreement.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board, alleging that the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement by using non-union personnel to perform electrical work.

The disputed work involved the commissioning of the Environmental Control and Fire Alarm Systems at a hospital project, specifically tasks related to programmable controllers and software verification.

The respondent argued that the commissioning of software was not construction work and therefore fell outside the union's jurisdiction.

The Board held that the commissioning of the systems, including both hardware and software (excluding the use of high-level computer language like Pascal), is part of the construction phase and falls within the ICI provisions of the collective agreement.

The Board found a violation of the agreement and remained seized on the quantum of damages.

The Practical Nurses Federation of Ontario applied for certification to represent a unit of registered and graduate nursing assistants at the Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital.

The Hospital raised a preliminary objection based on res judicata, arguing that the Board had recently dismissed a prior application between the same parties for the same bargaining unit, finding it inappropriate.

The applicant argued that material facts had changed since the prior decision.

The Board held that the facts relied upon as 'new' were anticipated in the prior decision and did not constitute a material change sufficient to permit re-litigation.

The application was dismissed on the basis of issue estoppel, with one Board Member dissenting.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees of the responding party.

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

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and the proposed bargaining unit to be appropriate.

The Board noted that while students-at-law are not entitled to practice law and may not fall under the professional employee provisions of the Labour Relations Act, a majority of the affected persons wished to be included in the unit regardless.

Finding that more than 55 percent of the employees in the unit were members of the applicant, the Board ordered that a certificate issue.

The Canadian Paperworkers Union applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for consent to continue its supervision and control over four local unions for a further twelve months under section 84 of the Labour Relations Act.

The local unions opposed the application, arguing the trusteeship was imposed in bad faith and that the locals no longer held bargaining rights.

The Board found it had jurisdiction and granted the continuation, noting that the trustee had been unable to complete his functions due to the locals' resistance and that the underlying dispute over assets would ultimately be resolved by the courts.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging that the employer, Grant Development Corporation, laid off all employees known or believed to be union supporters upon learning of the certification application.

Grant argued that the Band was the true employer and that the layoffs were due to a lack of work and a commercial dispute.

The Board found that Grant was the true employer, as it exercised fundamental control over the workers.

The Board further found that the mass layoff was motivated by anti-union animus, violating the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the aggrieved employees with compensation and granted the union certification under both section 7(2) and section 8 of the Act.

The complainant filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

The complainant, a call-in employee, was terminated by the employer for alleged unavailability.

The union president failed to return any of the complainant's numerous telephone calls, did not respond to her letter, and failed to investigate her claims that the employer's records were inaccurate.

The Board found that the union's failure to communicate with the complainant and investigate her concerns was arbitrary and constituted a breach of section 69.

The determination of remedial relief was deferred.

The complainant, a volunteer deputy fire chief, alleged he was removed from his position for seeking enforcement of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board found that while the complainant was dedicated and knowledgeable, he was also narrow-minded and confrontational.

The Township council dismissed him because they viewed him as a troublemaker who undermined the relationship between council and the fire department, not because of any anti-safety animus.

The reprisal complaint under section 24 of the Act was dismissed.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer terminated two employees for their union organizing activities.

The Board found that the employer's owner and his brother made threats of closure and job loss if the union was successful, and subsequently terminated one employee and constructively dismissed another due to anti-union animus.

Given the severity of the employer's breaches of the Labour Relations Act, the Board concluded that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained in a representation vote.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 8 of the Act to certify the union without a vote.

The applicants filed an unfair labour practice complaint and referred two grievances to arbitration, alleging the respondents failed to abide by work jurisdiction determinations and changed work methods to avoid assigning work to the applicants.

The respondents and intervener argued the matters were essentially jurisdictional disputes that should be deferred or dismissed.

The Board dismissed the preliminary motion to defer the unfair labour practice complaint and the mark-up grievance, finding they raised issues beyond mere work assignment, but adjourned the work assignment grievance.

The Board also granted the applicants leave to amend their complaint and granted the intervener full standing in the proceedings.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint against the respondent employer.

Instead of proceeding to a five-day hearing, the parties reached an omnibus settlement agreement that included conducting a representation vote.

The parties submitted their agreement to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for approval.

The Board approved the agreement, noting its mandate to facilitate the timely resolution of workplace disputes and finding no public policy reason to reject the parties' consensus.

The Board directed a representation vote for the agreed-upon bargaining unit and adjourned the unfair labour practice complaint sine die.

The union referred a grievance to the Board alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to pay travel time to nine maintenance mechanics who attended a mandatory training course outside Metro Toronto boundaries.

The employer argued that attending a training course was a 'duty' rather than 'work' and that the travel expense provision only applied to the construction industry.

The Board rejected the employer's arguments, finding that the employees were performing work on behalf of the employer and that the plain language of the collective agreement entitled them to travel expense remuneration.

In an application for certification, the respondent alleged that a person for whom the applicant submitted membership evidence did not pay the required $1.00 fee.

A Labour Relations Officer's inquiry revealed that a fellow employee paid the fee on the signer's behalf, and the signer reimbursed the employee prior to the completion of the Form 9 Declaration.

The Board found this satisfied the requirement under section 1(1) of the Act and declined to direct a hearing into the non-pay allegation.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 126 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer failed to pay travel time.

As a preliminary matter, the applicant argued the grievance had already been settled at Step Three of the collective agreement's grievance procedure by a joint Labour-Management Relations Committee.

The respondent argued the Committee's decision was not a binding settlement because the respondent did not agree to it, and that denying access to arbitration violated the Act.

The majority of the Board upheld the preliminary motion, finding the collective agreement empowered the Committee to issue a binding settlement and that this mechanism did not conflict with the statutory scheme.

The Board directed the respondent to comply with the settlement.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the motion, arguing the Committee process denied the parties their statutory right to an impartial arbitration.

The respondent employer and a group of employees requested reconsideration of the Board's decision to certify the applicant union in the construction industry.

They argued that the bargaining unit should have been described to conform with the provincial collective agreement, which included welders, rather than the designation orders, and that the failure to do so deprived them of proper notice.

The Board dismissed the requests, finding that the bargaining unit must be described by reference to the designation orders and that the notices provided were sufficient and proper.

In a jurisdictional dispute complaint between the Labourers and the IBEW over the installation of precast concrete duct systems, the parties sought a preliminary ruling on the scope of relevant past practice evidence.

The IBEW argued that evidence should be restricted to the ICI sector but include all types of conduit duct banks.

The Labourers and the employer argued that evidence should be restricted to precast concrete duct systems but not limited to the ICI sector.

The Board ruled that the scope of past practice evidence would be restricted to precast concrete ducts in the ICI sector in Board Area No. 2, finding that expanding the scope would add significant hearing days without corresponding benefit.