Employment and Labour Law

The applicant union sought an interim order declaring it the successor union and exclusive bargaining agent for employees in over 200 pending successor rights applications.

The applications arose from a massive inter-union dispute following the purported merger of various Ontario locals of the RWDSU with the Steelworkers, which was contested by the RWDSU International and the UFCW.

The dispute caused widespread confusion and collective bargaining paralysis, prompting employers and the Minister of Labour to seek clarification on which union to deal with.

The Board granted the interim order, declaring the Steelworkers as the interim exclusive bargaining agent to preserve orderly labour relations and allow the collective bargaining process to function until the main applications are resolved.

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

The central issue was whether the geographic scope of the bargaining unit should be described by reference to the municipality (City of London) or restricted to the specific street address where the employer currently provided cleaning services.

The employer argued that section 64.2 of the Labour Relations Act, which provides successor rights in the building services industry, alleviated the policy concerns underlying the Board's preference for municipal-wide certificates.

The Board rejected this argument, finding that section 64.2 did not address all concerns, such as protecting employees' preference for a collective bargaining relationship with their specific employer if the employer relocated operations.

The Board granted a municipal-wide certificate and certified the applicant.

The applicant Ironworkers Local 700 filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the assignment of work on a material handling system at the D.N.N. Hot Dip Galvanizing Line #1 in Windsor, Ontario.

The Board held a consultation and determined that the work in dispute was a completely integrated material handling system, not merely a conveyor system or production equipment.

Having regard to prevailing area practice and previous Board decisions, the Board ordered that the work be assigned to a composite crew consisting of equal numbers of Ironworkers and Millwrights performing the work functions interchangeably.

The order was made binding on all named parties and applied to future jobs undertaken in Board Area #1.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer contravened section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act by using replacement workers during a lawful strike.

The employer used an assistant manager to operate projection equipment and later to supervise an apprentice projectionist.

The Board found that the assistant manager's initial operation of the equipment violated the Act.

Furthermore, the Board held that supervising an apprentice projectionist constitutes bargaining unit work, and the employer's use of the assistant manager for this purpose also contravened section 73.1.

The Board issued a cease-and-desist direction.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board was asked to make a sector determination regarding the construction of an underground concrete water storage tank.

The applicant union argued the work fell within the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector, while the responding employer and intervenor union argued it was in the heavy engineering or sewer and watermain sectors.

Applying the test from The Heavy Construction Association of Toronto, the Board found that the tank's end use was part of a sewage treatment and water pollution control process, which is industrial in nature.

The Board concluded that the building of the water storage tank is work in the ICI sector of the construction industry.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Board regarding whether a collective agreement existed between the union and the employer.

The parties had signed a memorandum of settlement which was subsequently ratified by the union membership.

The union argued that because written notice of ratification was not provided, the agreement was not finalized.

The Board held that written evidence of ratification is not strictly required where there is compelling evidence of ratification, particularly where the parties agreed to oral notification.

The Board concluded that a collective agreement was in effect from August 1, 1993 to July 31, 1996.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer discharged employees for joining the union.

The employer did not appear, relying on an ex parte Order obtained under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) which it claimed stayed the Board's proceedings.

The Board reserved its decision on whether the CCAA Order immunized the ongoing business from provincial employment legislation and the Labour Relations Act, noting the potential conflict with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Board directed its counsel to appear in Court the following day to seek clarification on the impact of the CCAA Order on the ongoing litigation.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the union's bargaining rights shortly after a previous termination application was dismissed.

The union argued that the multiple applications constituted an abuse of process that interfered with collective bargaining.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 105(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act to refuse to entertain the application, finding that the union had not been given a reasonable opportunity to pursue collective bargaining free from continuous challenges.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was barred from filing any new termination application for a period of six months.

The union applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the employer breached the Labour Relations Act by proposing a final offer with a duration clause of less than one year from the date of the final offer vote.

The union sought an extension of the duration clause to one year from the vote date.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union failed to argue a breach of the duty to bargain in good faith under section 15, and that section 53(1) does not apply to a final offer until it is signed by the union and becomes a collective agreement.

The union filed a construction industry grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by laying off senior employees while retaining two less senior employees who had recently returned from compensable injuries.

The employer argued it was required to retain the injured workers under the re-employment obligations of the Workers' Compensation Act.

The Board held that section 54(15) of the Workers' Compensation Act explicitly provides that the statutory re-employment obligations do not displace the seniority provisions of a collective agreement.

The Board declared that the employer breached the collective agreement by retaining the less senior employees.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated the statutory freeze and failed to bargain in good faith.

Following the expiration of the collective agreement, the employer laid off unionized employees and subsequently hired non-union workers to perform bargaining unit work without applying the terms of the expired agreement.

The employer also presented proposals with significant wage cuts and resisted further negotiations, seeking to end its relationship with the union due to economic difficulties.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer violated the statutory freeze under section 81 and failed to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered compensation for the section 81 violation and directed the employer to resume bargaining, declining the union's request to impose a collective agreement as a remedy.

The complainant, a union member, alleged that the union breached its duty of fair referral under section 70 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to issue him a referral slip for a name-hire request.

The refusal followed a history of animosity between the complainant and the union executive, including internal union charges and a substantial fine levied against the complainant.

The Board found that the union's proffered reasons for refusing the referral slip were not credible and that the refusal was motivated by hostility and ill-will.

The Board concluded that the union's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory, and in bad faith, and directed the union to compensate the complainant for his losses.

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

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement to reinstate the applicant and refer the matter to arbitration.

The applicant subsequently changed his mind and sought to proceed before the Board.

The responding employer brought a motion requesting the Board decline to inquire into the complaint based on the settlement.

The Board granted the motion, finding no good reason to permit the applicant to resile from the freely entered settlement agreement, and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of municipal employees.

The responding party employer argued that the Road Superintendent should be excluded from the bargaining unit on the basis that he exercised managerial functions under section 1(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board reviewed the Road Superintendent's duties, finding that his authority was largely recommendatory, routine, or circumscribed by the Township Council, and that he spent the vast majority of his time performing work similar to the undisputed bargaining unit member.

The Board concluded that he did not exercise managerial functions and included him in the bargaining unit, ultimately granting the application for certification.

The union applied to combine a newly certified part-time bargaining unit with an existing full-time bargaining unit under section 7 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer opposed the combination, arguing it would disrupt collective bargaining and force the reopening of the full-time collective agreement.

The Board directed the combination of the units, finding that a combined unit of full-time and part-time employees is deemed appropriate under the Act and would facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining while reducing fragmentation.

The Board declined to order that the current collective agreement automatically apply to the part-time unit, leaving that issue for the parties to negotiate.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether the labour relations of Transit Windsor fall under provincial or federal jurisdiction, following the union's request for a conciliation officer.

Transit Windsor operates a municipal transit system but also runs a regular and continuous extra-provincial bus service to Detroit, Michigan.

Applying constitutional principles, the Board determined that the extra-provincial services, though comprising only 3% of total working hours, constituted a continuous and regular part of an indivisible undertaking.

Consequently, the Board advised the Minister that the labour relations between the parties fall within federal jurisdiction.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by issuing letters to two reinstated employees prohibiting them from engaging in union activity or discussing union-related issues on company premises.

The employer argued that recent amendments to the Act restricted union organizing to outside the workplace.

The Board rejected this interpretation, finding that the amendments addressed access to property by non-employees, not the rights of employees already lawfully on the premises.

The Board held that the prohibition violated sections 65 and 67 of the Act and declared the restriction void, but declined to order a workplace posting.

The applicant union applied for certification of a part-time bargaining unit at a nursing home, proposing to exclude registered nurses.

The responding party employer argued that registered nurses should be included.

The Board found that the proposed unit was appropriate, noting the industry practice of excluding registered nurses from service units and the Board's policy of mirroring part-time units with existing full-time units, which in this case excluded registered nurses.

The Board granted the application and issued a certificate.

The Minister of Labour referred questions to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding a request by the Painters' union to amend its employee bargaining agency designation to explicitly include 'employees engaged in the removal of asbestos'.

The Labourers and Insulators unions opposed the amendment, arguing it would disrupt the province-wide bargaining scheme and create overlapping classifications, as they also represent asbestos removers.

The Board advised the Minister that the amendment was neither necessary nor appropriate.

The Board found that the Painters already assert jurisdiction over asbestos removal through their 'fireproofing applicators' designation, and adding specific work functions to craft-based designations would undermine the stability of the province-wide bargaining regime.

The applicant union sought interim reinstatement of two employees pending the final disposition of an unfair labour practice discharge complaint against the responding employer.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the employer to reinstate the employees on an interim basis, but declined to grant any order regarding compensation.

The Board also ordered the employer to post a notice to employees regarding their rights under the Labour Relations Act.

Reasons for the decision were to follow.