Employment and Labour Law

The applicant, a school custodian, was discharged following a criminal conviction for theft.

She requested that her staff association advance her discharge grievance to arbitration, with her legal costs covered by Legal Aid.

The association refused, claiming it was not a trade union and had no obligation to proceed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the association, having negotiated collective agreements and collected dues for over 20 years, met the statutory definition of a trade union.

The Board further held that the association breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to turn its mind to the merits of the grievance.

The association was directed to consider the merits of the case and issue a reasoned decision on whether to advance it to arbitration.

The applicant trade union referred a grievance to the Board under section 126 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking damages for the employer's misassignment of work to another union.

The Board had previously ruled in a jurisdictional dispute that the work should have been assigned to the applicant.

The employer argued that Article 8.6 of the collective agreement precluded the Board from awarding damages for a first misassignment of work.

The Board agreed, finding that the collective agreement language prohibited the hearings panel from awarding damages unless specific exceptions applied, which were not met in this case.

The Board declared that the employer violated the collective agreement but awarded no damages.

The Labourers' International Union filed a complaint concerning a work assignment by Nicholls Radtke Limited regarding the stripping of formwork at a co-generation project.

The employer had assigned the work to the Labourers, which the Carpenters grieved.

The Board determined that, based on the employer's past practice, the original written assignment, and area practice, the assignment to the Labourers was incorrect.

The Board ruled that the Carpenters have jurisdiction over the releasing, removal, and dismantling of formwork where the materials are intended to be re-used for forming purposes.

The union applied for interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the employer changed the work schedules of fragrance associates as a reprisal for their participation in a grievance arbitration.

The union sought an order restoring the previous work schedule and an order requiring the employer to post a notice of employee rights.

The Board dismissed the request to restore the work schedule, finding that the harm to the employees was primarily financial and could be remedied if the main complaint succeeded, whereas an interim order would significantly intrude on the employer's management rights and the collective agreement.

However, the Board granted the request for a posting, directing the employer to post a notice advising employees of their rights under the Act to prevent potential labour relations harm without prejudicing the employer.

The complainant filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the union regarding events from 1990-1991, including the negotiation of a severance package following a plant closure.

The complainant had previously filed and withdrawn similar complaints after the Board refused to hold the entire hearing in Thunder Bay.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act to dismiss the new complaint without a hearing, finding it to be vexatious, an abuse of process, and serving no useful labour relations purpose given that the local union and the plant no longer existed.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer laid off two employees and solicited anti-union petitions in response to an organizing campaign.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer violated sections 65 and 67 of the Labour Relations Act by laying off the employees for their union activity and by interfering in the selection of a trade union.

Concluding that the true wishes of the employees were unlikely to be ascertained due to the employer's unlawful conduct, the Board certified the union under section 9.2 of the Act and ordered the reinstatement of the laid-off employees with compensation.

The applicant union applied for certification of security guards at a condominium site.

Shortly after the application date, Meadowvale Security Guard Services Inc. acquired the contract for the site and became the new employer.

Meadowvale already had a collective agreement with the intervenor union (CLAC) that contained a broad recognition clause covering future sites.

The Board declined to proceed with the certification application, finding that the complex issues regarding the validity of the collective agreement, intermingling of employees, and representation rights could only be properly addressed if a successor employer application under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act was filed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees objected, arguing that section 8(4) of the Labour Relations Act violated the Charter and that the Board's interpretation of the certification application date denied natural justice.

The Board refused to hear the Charter argument because the objectors failed to notify the Attorneys General.

The Board rejected the natural justice arguments, following its previous decision in Hemlo Gold Mines Inc. The Board also declined to exercise its discretion to order a representation vote, finding no compelling reasons to do so given the union's clear majority support.

The union was certified as the bargaining agent.

The Ironworkers filed a jurisdictional complaint against Comstock Canada and the Millwrights regarding the assignment of work related to material handling systems.

Prior to the consultation, the Ironworkers and the employer settled, but the Millwrights did not.

The Board ruled that the consultation would proceed because a jurisdictional dispute between the two unions still existed.

The Board determined that the work in dispute included the entire chain of work, from dismantling to installation.

Ultimately, the Board directed that the work be assigned to a composite crew consisting of equal numbers of Ironworkers and Millwrights, performing all functions interchangeably, and made the order binding on future jobs in Board Area #1.

The applicant union sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to reinstate two employees discharged during a union organizing campaign.

The employer alleged the employees were discharged for suspected theft and threatening behaviour.

The Board applied its two-part test for interim relief, finding that the union had established an arguable case that the discharges violated the Act.

The Board further concluded that the potential labour relations harm of discharging key union organizers during a campaign significantly outweighed the potential harm to the employer of temporarily reinstating them.

The Board ordered the interim reinstatement of the employees pending the final disposition of the main unfair labour practice complaint.

The complainant filed a complaint alleging that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by settling her grievance regarding an involuntary transfer to part-time status rather than proceeding to arbitration.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union acted in good faith, considered the merits of the grievance, and reasonably concluded that arbitration was unlikely to succeed or benefit the complainant.

The complaint was dismissed.

The Board considered an application for interim relief in a successor rights dispute involving competing claims by the Steelworkers, the UFCW, and the RWDSU over the representation of employees at New Dominion/A & P stores.

The unions were unable to agree on how to conduct their affairs while the matter was pending.

To preserve orderly labour relations and ensure employees had continued representation by familiar individuals, the Board granted an interim order maintaining the status quo as of July 10, 1993, allowing local store managers to continue dealing with the union representatives they customarily dealt with prior to the dispute.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board, alleging the employer improperly assigned work to members of another local.

At the hearing, the applicant sought to introduce evidence of an ambiguity in the provincial agreement but had not pleaded this issue.

The Board adjourned the matter to allow for proper pleadings.

Given the delay and the nature of the dispute, the Board issued an interim order permitting the employer to assign the disputed work to members of either local at its discretion until the application is finally resolved.

The Board reserved its decision on the employer's request for costs of the day.

The applicants, taxi drivers and union members, sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to prevent the union from selling three new accessible taxi stand spots at the Ottawa International Airport pending a duty of fair representation complaint.

The applicants alleged the spots should have been allocated by seniority rather than by lottery.

The Board applied the test for interim relief, balancing the harm to the parties.

The Board found that the potential harm to the applicants was primarily financial and could be remedied in the main proceeding, whereas granting the order could delay the provision of accessible taxis, jeopardize the employer's contract, and potentially harm the union membership.

The application for interim relief was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent security guards employed by the responding party.

Shortly after the application, the responding party lost its contract and an intervenor took over as a successor employer.

The intervenor argued that a representation vote should be held because the workforce had changed and expanded since the application date.

The Board allowed the intervenor to participate but dismissed the request for a representation vote, finding that the 'build-up' principle did not apply as the workforce increase was minimal and the original employees remained sufficiently representative.

The Board granted interim certification to the union.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act alleging that an unknown employee placed a pair of women's panties in his mail bank.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, noting that it is not an investigatory agency and cannot proceed against unknown persons.

Furthermore, the Board found that the alleged conduct, even if true, did not establish a breach of the Act as there was no indication the applicant was exercising rights or engaging in activity protected by the Act.

The applicant trade union filed a second application for certification after withdrawing its first application to avoid a potential representation vote due to a dispute over the inclusion of three employees.

The responding employer argued this was a manipulation of the Board's processes and requested the Board impose a bar on the application or order a representation vote.

The Board declined to impose a bar, finding no special or extreme circumstances, and refused to order a vote, noting that the union's actions were not improper and any limitation on objecting employees resulted from the operation of the Labour Relations Act, not the union's conduct.

An interim certificate was issued.

The applicant union sought certification for employees of two responding employers engaged in decommissioning uranium mines in Elliot Lake.

The employers argued that their operations fell under federal jurisdiction pursuant to the Canada Labour Code and the Atomic Energy Control Act, as the work involved uranium mines.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied a functional test and determined that decommissioning a mine is analogous to demolition in the construction industry and is not an integral part of operating a federal undertaking.

The Board concluded that the labour relations of the employers fell within provincial jurisdiction and granted the applications for certification.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the bargaining rights of the CAW.

The CAW moved that the Board exercise its discretion under section 105(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act to refuse to entertain the application and to impose a ten-month bar, arguing that a prior termination application had recently been dismissed and the union had not had a reasonable opportunity to bargain.

The Board found that the employees' wishes had been tested in the prior application and that the union had not had a reasonable opportunity to bargain since its dismissal.

The Board exercised its discretion to refuse to entertain the application but declined to impose a bar, noting that the applicant was not the unsuccessful applicant in the prior proceeding.

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

The responding parties brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the parties had reached a binding oral settlement during a meeting with a Board Officer.

The applicant argued that the settlement was only tentative and that his former counsel lacked authority to bind him without his final approval of the written documents.

The Board found that a final oral settlement had been reached and that the applicant's former counsel had ostensible authority to bind him.

The Board exercised its discretion not to inquire further into the complaint.