Employment and Labour Law

The applicant union sought an interim order under section 92.1(1) of the Labour Relations Act to prohibit the employer and the union from engaging in economic sanctions, including strikes and lock-outs, pending the disposition of an application under section 7 to combine two bargaining units.

The parties were in a legal strike/lock-out position for the "outside unit", while the "office unit" had already ratified a tentative agreement.

The Board dismissed the request for an interim order, finding that the actions sought to be prohibited were lawful under the Act.

The Board concluded that the potential harm of not granting the order was outweighed by the unusual and intrusive effect such an order would have on the established collective bargaining process.

The applicant union applied for certification and subsequently sought to amend its proposed bargaining unit to a smaller group of employees.

The objectors argued this constituted a new application and that the original application date should not apply.

The Board allowed the amendment, maintaining the original application date, and found the amended bargaining unit to be appropriate.

The parties subsequently reached an agreement on the voting constituency and arrangements for a representation vote, and the union withdrew its related unfair labour practice complaints.

The applicant union filed a second application for certification after withdrawing its first application due to irregularities in the membership evidence (pre-witnessed cards).

The responding employer argued that the new membership evidence was tainted by the union's prior conduct, including an allegedly fraudulent unfair labour practice complaint and the earlier card irregularities.

The Board found no evidence of impropriety in the collection of the fresh membership evidence and declined to dismiss the application or order a representation vote, distinguishing cases where actual fraud on the Board had occurred.

The company and the union filed cross-applications during an ongoing legal strike.

The union alleged the company violated section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act by using replacement workers, while the company sought restrictions on picketing under section 11.1 to remove perishable inventory.

The Board found the company violated section 73.1 and ordered it to cease and desist and post the decision.

The Board dismissed the company's request for picketing restrictions, finding no undue disruption and noting the company's own conduct, including its use of prohibited replacement workers to pack the products, weighed against exercising discretion in its favour.

The union applied for interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking the reinstatement of several employees and the restoration of duties and hours for others, pending the hearing of an unfair labour practice complaint.

The Board found that the union had established an arguable case that the employer's actions were motivated by anti-union animus during an organizing drive.

Concluding that the balance of harm favoured granting the relief to preserve the employees' ability to freely participate in union activities, the Board ordered the interim reinstatements and the posting of a notice in the workplace.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer terminated three employees due to anti-union animus during an organizing campaign.

The union also sought certification without a vote under section 9.2 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the employer's stated reasons for the terminations were pretextual and that the decisions were motivated by a belief that the employees supported the union.

Given the employer's serious violations, including interrogating employees and terminating union supporters, the Board concluded that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the employees with compensation and certified the union.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at General Signal Limited.

The parties agreed that the unit should include both full-time and part-time employees pursuant to section 6(2.1) of the Labour Relations Act, but disagreed on whether summer students should be included.

The employer argued that the omission of summer students from section 6(2.1) meant they should be excluded, while the union argued for their inclusion based on the Board's historical practice of treating part-time employees and summer students in tandem.

The Board found that the statutory amendments favoured broader-based bargaining structures and that a unit comprising full-time employees and summer students was appropriate and viable.

The Board granted the application and certified the union for the proposed unit.

The applicant union filed a jurisdictional complaint regarding the assignment of work for the installation of a local area network computer system at a nuclear generating station.

The employer had assigned the work to the responding union's members, who were maintenance workers, rather than the applicant's members, who were construction electricians.

The Board determined that the work constituted construction rather than maintenance, and that the applicant's members possessed the requisite skill and ability.

The Board concluded that the correct assignment of the work in dispute was to the applicant union.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether the labour relations between Charterways Transportation Limited and its unions fall within federal or provincial jurisdiction.

Charterways operates bus services across Ontario, including regular extra-provincial charters.

The unions argued that each local branch constituted a separate provincial undertaking.

The Board applied the test for federal undertakings and concluded that the core undertaking is the province-wide bus services, not the individual branches.

Because the province-wide undertaking includes regular and continuous extra-provincial charter activity, the Board advised that the labour relations between the parties fall within federal jurisdiction.

In an application for certification of a large unit of security guards, the parties agreed to a representation vote but disputed the union's request for the disclosure of employee addresses.

The employer argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to order disclosure and raised confidentiality concerns.

The Board held it had jurisdiction under section 105(2)(f) of the Labour Relations Act to make the direction.

Balancing the union's need to communicate with the electorate against the employer's confidentiality interests and employee privacy, the Board directed a compromise: the employer must produce address labels, and the union may attend the employer's offices to jointly label and mail sealed envelopes containing campaign literature at the union's expense.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by issuing a written reprimand to a union executive member.

The member had visited a volunteer's home to lobby against a city committee's decision to replace a bargaining unit position with volunteers.

The employer argued the discipline was for a breach of the duty of fidelity, not anti-union animus.

The Board found the member's actions were protected union activities and that the discipline intentionally interfered with the administration of the trade union.

The Board ordered the discipline rescinded.

The applicants filed a complaint concerning a work assignment dispute between the Carpenters and the Labourers regarding the carpentry portion of concrete forming work for outdoor structures on three construction projects.

The Labourers argued the work fell within a distinct 'landscaping sector' and requested a sector determination hearing.

The Board declined to hold a separate hearing, finding it could determine the sector issue within the consultation process.

The Board concluded the work was in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector and declined to recognize a separate landscaping sector.

Relying on a trade agreement between the unions and area practice, the Board directed that the work be assigned to the Carpenters.

The employer brought an application under section 137 of the Labour Relations Act seeking declarations that the union abandoned its bargaining rights and that a 'No Board Report' was invalid, along with a cease and desist order against threatened picketing.

The Board declined to inquire into the abandonment of bargaining rights, noting the employer had not previously sought a declaration terminating bargaining rights and the Minister has exclusive jurisdiction over the conciliation process.

The Board also found that the union's threatened picketing was not for an unlawful purpose, as its predominant purpose was to exert lawful economic pressure to achieve a collective agreement.

The applications were dismissed after the parties signed a renewal collective agreement.

The union applied for certification and alleged unfair labour practices by the employer, a university students' association.

The employer terminated two employees who were key union organizers and engaged in a pattern of harassment and intimidation during the organizing campaign.

The Board found that the employer violated sections 65, 67, and 71 of the Labour Relations Act.

Concluding that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained due to the employer's contraventions, the Board exercised its discretion under section 9.2 of the Act to certify the union without a vote.

The applicant union alleged that a sale of a business occurred from Inplant Contractors Inc. to Flint Canada and Flint USA, or alternatively, that the companies were related employers under common control and direction.

Inplant, a unionized company, went into receivership, and its former officer and a key employee subsequently worked for the newly formed Flint Canada.

The Board found that Flint Canada was established to serve the pre-existing business of Flint USA, not to acquire Inplant's business.

The Board concluded that the hiring of the former Inplant personnel did not constitute a sale of a business.

Furthermore, the Board found that Inplant and Flint Canada were not under common control and direction.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant union alleged that the responding employers violated section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act by using replacement workers during a lawful strike.

The employers brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application, arguing that section 73.1, which came into force on January 1, 1993, did not apply because the strike and the hiring of replacement workers occurred prior to its enactment.

The majority of the Board dismissed the motion, finding that section 73.1 is not retroactive but applies prospectively to the ongoing status of a strike, prohibiting the continued use of replacement workers after the statutory preconditions are met.

The presumption against retrospectivity did not apply.

Two unions referred grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding work performed by the employer on a barge.

The employer argued the work was ship repair/refitting and not covered by the construction industry collective agreements.

The Board dismissed the Millwrights' grievance, finding the work on a chattel (the barge) was not 'construction' under their provincial agreement, nor did it qualify as 'maintenance' under their maintenance agreement.

However, the Board allowed the Operating Engineers' grievance, finding their province-wide agreement was not restricted to the construction industry and applied to the crane operation work which constituted steel erection or mechanical installation.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer failed to bargain in good faith when its elected trustees refused to ratify a tentative collective agreement.

The employer argued that the settlement was expressly subject to ratification and that severe provincial funding cuts justified the trustees' decision to reject the settlement.

The Board found that the employer did not breach its duty to bargain in good faith, as the change in economic circumstances was real and compelling, and the employer was entitled to reconsider its bargaining position.

The complaint was dismissed, and the parties were directed to return to the bargaining table.

The applicant union, Local 75, brought an application under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act claiming that the business of the Skyline Triumph Hotel had been transferred to the responding parties, Accomodex and Kelloryn, who reopened it as a Howard Johnson Hotel.

The responding parties argued it was merely a transfer of idle assets following a closure and receivership.

The Board found that the transaction constituted a sale of a business within the meaning of the Act, as the new owners acquired the core asset configuration and continued to operate the same kind of business from the same location, thereby preserving the union's bargaining rights.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees currently represented by the intervenor union.

A pre-hearing representation vote was held, but due to a snowstorm, the Board Officer arrived late and the polling times were changed by agreement of the parties.

The applicant won the vote.

The intervenor subsequently objected, arguing that the changed times disenfranchised certain drivers and requesting a new vote.

The Board dismissed the objection, noting that the intervenor had signed consent and waiver forms after the vote and failed to establish that any agreement for a re-vote had been made.

The Board upheld the vote results and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.