Employment and Labour Law

The applicants, employees of General Motors, filed a complaint alleging that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

They claimed the union misled them regarding early retirement options and failed to vigorously pursue grievances when they attempted to rescind their irrevocable retirement applications.

The Board found no evidence of misrepresentation, noting that the new buyout option was not intended for employees who had already accepted previous retirement packages.

The Board also held that the union's refusal to process grievances it deemed meritless was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to assign work to a composite crew of Ironworkers and Millwrights.

The employer and the intervening Millwrights argued the grievance was inarbitrable as it raised a jurisdictional dispute.

The Board held that while the grievance alleged a collective agreement violation, the underlying issue was a jurisdictional dispute over a work assignment.

The Board adjourned the grievance sine die pending the filing and disposition of a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicants, two registered nurses, filed a complaint against their union alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

They claimed the union delayed scheduling their grievances regarding wage grid placement, failed to support one applicant in Workers' Compensation matters, and failed to prevent her termination for not providing medical information.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union had not acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.

The union had filed grievances as requested, provided ongoing advice and representation, and the applicant's termination resulted from her own refusal to comply with the employer's requests and the union's advice.

The applicant union filed a construction industry grievance alleging that the responding employer violated the collective agreement by assigning the installation of modular office wall panels to another union without holding a proper mark-up meeting.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer breached the collective agreement by failing to follow the required mark-up procedures before commencing the work.

However, the Board declined to award damages for loss of opportunity because the applicant failed to provide evidence that it had unemployed members ready and available to perform the work at the relevant time.

A dissenting board member would have awarded damages, taking judicial notice of high unemployment in the construction trades.

The applicants, two construction trade unions, applied for certification to represent standard craft units of employees of the City of St. Thomas.

The City and the intervenor union, CUPE, argued the applications were untimely because a current collective agreement between the City and CUPE covered the employees in question.

The applicants contended that the CUPE agreement did not cover construction trades or, alternatively, that CUPE had abandoned its bargaining rights.

The Board found that the CUPE collective agreement's 'all employee' recognition clause applied to the outside workers performing construction tasks, and there was no evidence of abandonment.

The applications were dismissed as untimely.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application for certification after discovering a forged signature on a membership card.

The responding employer opposed the withdrawal, arguing the application should be dismissed with a six-month bar, and sought to introduce evidence of intimidation.

The Board granted the union leave to withdraw the application without imposing a bar, noting the request was made well before the hearing.

The Board declined to hear the intimidation allegations, deferring them to a second certification application filed by the union.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to take his discharge grievance to arbitration.

The applicant had previously been discharged and reinstated under a strict memorandum of settlement.

Following further infractions, he was discharged again.

The union processed the grievance but ultimately decided not to proceed to arbitration, concluding it could not succeed.

The Board granted the union's motion for non-suit at the close of the applicant's case, finding no evidence that the union acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board cancelled a scheduled hearing, determining that representations regarding the Officer's Report could be appropriately made and received in writing.

The Board set a schedule for the applicant to make written representations, followed by the responding party's response and the applicant's reply.

The Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1059, and the Electrical Power Systems Construction Association (EPSCA) requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision regarding a jurisdictional dispute over a work assignment.

The Board treated the Labourers' request as timely but dismissed it on the merits, finding no obvious error, new evidence, or policy issue justifying reconsideration.

The Board also dismissed the EPSCA's request, finding it was filed late without a cogent reason and lacked merit.

Both requests for reconsideration were dismissed.

The union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of employees at Hornco Plastics Inc.'s Whitby plant.

The responding parties argued that Hornco and Horn Plastics Ltd. should be treated as a single employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, and that the appropriate bargaining unit should encompass both the Whitby plant and Horn's Pickering plant.

The Board found that the two plants were highly integrated, with a single payroll, shared management, and significant employee interchange.

The Board exercised its discretion to declare the companies a single employer and found the broader two-plant unit to be appropriate to avoid serious labour relations problems.

As the union had less than forty percent membership support in the broader unit, the application for certification was dismissed.

Following the certification of the applicant union, the respondent employer requested an investigation into allegations that five employees did not sign the union membership cards submitted on their behalf.

The Board conducted a confidential investigation and informed the employer that there was no basis to proceed further.

The employer subsequently requested reasons for this decision.

The Board provided written reasons explaining its rigorous, confidential procedures for verifying membership evidence and investigating non-sign allegations, emphasizing that section 113(1) of the Labour Relations Act prohibits the disclosure of employee wishes regarding union representation unless a prima facie case of fraud is established.

The Employer, a home for the aged, decided to assign the administration of medications to Registered Nursing Assistants (RNAs) instead of Registered Nurses (RNs) to reduce costs.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) filed a work assignment complaint, arguing this violated Article 2.02 of their collective agreement, which protected work normally performed by the bargaining unit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the Employer's past practice of exclusively assigning this work to RNs since 1974 strongly supported ONA's position.

The Board ordered the Employer to cease assigning the disputed work to RNAs and restore it to the RNs.

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

The responding party argued that the Ontario Labour Relations Board lacked constitutional jurisdiction because 90% of its security services were provided to federal government departments and agencies under a detailed federal contract.

The Board held that while the provision of security services may be reasonably incidental to the federal undertakings, it was not integral or essential to their core operations.

Therefore, the employment relationship fell within provincial jurisdiction.

The Board found it had jurisdiction and granted the certification.

The applicant trade union applied for certification, initially characterizing the application as pertaining to the construction industry.

When it became apparent the employer was not in the construction industry, the union amended the bargaining unit description.

The employer argued the application date should be changed to the date of the amendment.

The Board rejected this argument, treating the initial characterization as a technical error and maintaining the original application date.

Finding that more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant, the Board issued a certificate.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of security guards.

The parties disputed the geographic description of the bargaining unit, with the union proposing a unit covering regional municipalities and counties, while the employer proposed a unit limited to specific municipalities.

The Board found the employer's proposed unit appropriate, consistent with its general practice of describing non-construction bargaining units by municipality.

As the union had sufficient membership support regardless of the resolution of remaining disputes over managerial exclusions, the Board granted interim certification and referred the list issues to a Labour Relations Officer.

The responding party requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision awarding $16,298.10 in damages to the applicant union.

The request was made via letter, alleging the damages amount was wrong.

The applicant opposed the request, noting it was filed beyond the 30-day time limit and lacked sufficient facts.

The Board denied the application for reconsideration because it was not filed in the proper form, was filed late without reasons for the delay, failed to include complete written representations, and raised no issues that could not have been raised at the original hearing.

The applicant union sought interim relief to reinstate an employee acting as an in-house organizer who was terminated during an organizing campaign.

The employer alleged the employee was terminated for providing a false alibi for a thief.

The Board granted the interim relief, ordering the organizer returned to work without compensation pending an expedited hearing on the merits.

In this concurring decision, Board Member Ronson agreed with the reinstatement, noting the minimal risk of the organizer becoming involved in theft during the short period before the hearing, while acknowledging the employer's zero-tolerance policy for theft.

The United Steelworkers of America applied for certification to represent employees at Tate Andale Canada Inc. A group of employees filed a petition opposing the certification.

The Board found that the petition did not represent a voluntary expression of employee wishes, given the recent unlawful dismissal of two key union organizers and the appearance of management approval during the petition's circulation.

The Board also dismissed the employer's allegation that the union used intimidation to secure membership cards, finding the evidence of the union's witness more credible.

Finally, the Board determined that a specific employee, Richard Grainger, belonged in the bargaining unit despite his unique terms of employment.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The union applied for certification to represent employees of a company engaged in ship maintenance and repair.

The company challenged the Ontario Labour Relations Board's constitutional jurisdiction, arguing its activities were integral to shipping and thus fell under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Board found that the overwhelming majority of the company's ship repairs were performed while ships were docked over the winter months, lacking the necessary operational integration with the core federal shipping undertakings.

The Board concluded the company's operations fell within provincial jurisdiction and granted the certification.

The union applied for an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to reinstate three employees who were allegedly discharged for their participation in a union organizing campaign, pending the resolution of the main unfair labour practice application.

The Board declined to grant the interim order, finding that the harm suffered by the employees was primarily financial and that the delay in bringing the application militated against intervention, as the employer had already hired replacements and would suffer significant harm if the order were granted.