Employment and Labour Law

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of registered and graduate nurses.

The employer argued that the Occupational Health Nurse should be excluded from the bargaining unit on the basis that she exercised managerial functions and was employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations under section 1(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the nurse's duties, which included assessing fitness to return to work, completing workers' compensation forms, and limited involvement in discipline and hiring, were based on her professional expertise and did not constitute managerial functions.

The Board also found insufficient evidence of regular and material involvement in confidential labour relations matters.

The Board declared the nurse to be an employee and issued a final certificate.

In an application for certification, a dispute arose regarding the appropriate bargaining unit.

The applicant union and the employer sought a single 'all-employee' unit, while the incumbent union argued for separate units for nursing staff and other employees.

The Board found that the single unit proposed by the applicant was appropriate, noting the established bargaining history and the community of interest among the employees.

The Board directed that all ballots cast in the pre-hearing representation vote be counted together.

The applicant requested production of certain documents.

The respondent did not dispute relevance but argued that health legislation and professional obligations imposed standards of confidentiality on health professionals regarding medical information.

The Board ordered the respondent to produce the documents, subject to an agreement that they would only be disclosed to the Board and counsel, who must preserve their confidentiality.

The applicants filed a jurisdictional complaint regarding the demolition and removal of the inactive Bruce Heavy Water Plant A. The plant was sold for scrap metal, and the demolition work was subcontracted and assigned to the Labourers.

The Board confirmed the assignment to the Labourers, noting that the work involved knocking down the facility for scrap without needing to protect the integrity of the components, which aligns with established practice for construction labourers in the Electrical Power Systems sector.

The applicant union applied to combine a newly certified bargaining unit of editorial employees in Simcoe County with an existing bargaining unit of editorial employees.

The respondent employer argued that the Board should not remain seized of the matter or should freeze the terms and conditions of employment, to allow the parties to bargain without interference.

The Board rejected the employer's arguments, noting that the statute expressly confers remedial jurisdiction to resolve differences arising from a combination order.

The Board ordered the two bargaining units combined and remained seized to deal with any further remedial relief.

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the employer bargained in bad faith and engaged in an unlawful lockout when it closed its restaurant operation.

The employer had sought significant monetary concessions due to mounting financial losses, which the union repeatedly rejected.

After the employer implemented a lockout, it learned the union wanted to continue negotiating but decided to permanently close the business.

The Board dismissed the complaints, finding that the employer bargained in good faith and that the lockout and subsequent closure were motivated by legitimate financial concerns rather than anti-union animus.

The Board also held that the employer's final offer did not remain open for acceptance after the business closed.

The applicant union applied under section 7 of the Labour Relations Act to combine its full-time and part-time food service bargaining units at the responding party's university location.

The Board granted the application, finding that combining the units would reduce fragmentation and facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining without causing serious labour relations problems.

The Board rejected the employer's arguments regarding differences in community of interest and potential enhancement of the union's bargaining power.

A concurring member agreed with the result reluctantly, noting the primary purpose appeared to be enhancing bargaining power, which the Board's jurisprudence did not treat as a barrier to combination.

During a hearing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the applicant requested the production of a Pay Equity Report referenced by the responding party's witness.

The responding party objected on the grounds of relevance and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA).

The Board directed the production of the report, finding it potentially relevant to the issues in dispute and noting that section 51 of MFIPPA explicitly preserves the power of tribunals to compel the production of documents.

The responding party employer brought a motion to defer the applicant union's grievance referral pending the filing of a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act.

The grievance concerned the employer's assignment of piping removal work to unrepresented labourers rather than to members of the applicant union.

The Board found that while it had jurisdiction to entertain the matter as a jurisdictional dispute, it was not appropriate to defer the grievance at this stage.

The dispute primarily involved the interpretation of the collective agreement, and resolving the grievance might dispose of the jurisdictional issue entirely.

The motion to defer was dismissed.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the provincial collective agreement by assigning work at a Kemptville job site to members of another local union.

The Board interpreted the geographic jurisdiction provisions of the agreement and found that Kemptville was not within the applicant's exclusive jurisdiction, allowing the employer to assign the work at its discretion.

The Board also extensively reviewed its jurisdiction to award legal costs, concluding that it lacks the statutory authority to award costs in a section 126 proceeding absent a specific provision in the collective agreement.

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

The responding party employer disputed the employee status of ten individuals, arguing they exercised managerial functions or were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations under section 1(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that only the Records Management Coordinator was excluded due to her regular involvement with confidential labour relations information.

The remaining nine individuals, including planners, inspectors, and secretarial staff, were found to be employees within the meaning of the Act, as their access to confidential information or exercise of managerial authority was irregular or insufficient to warrant exclusion.

The applicant trade union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether numerous persons were 'employees' within the meaning of the Act.

The parties resolved the status of most individuals, leaving seventeen persons in dispute.

The Board assessed whether these individuals exercised managerial functions or were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

The Board concluded that seven of the disputed persons exercised managerial functions and were excluded from the Act, while the remaining ten were employees within the meaning of the Act.

One Board Member dissented, finding that all seventeen should be excluded.

The Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1089 and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 530 disputed the assignment of work involving the installation of a Trenwa duct system at a compressor station.

The employer had subcontracted the work to a company bound by the Labourers' agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the duct system was for the exclusive purpose of housing electrical cables and was part of the electrical installation.

The Board directed that the disputed work be assigned to members of the IBEW.

The responding party failed to attend a construction industry grievance hearing, resulting in a decision against it.

The responding party subsequently requested that the decision be withheld, claiming it was misinformed by the union about the hearing time.

The Board treated the request as one for reconsideration under section 108(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board denied the request, finding that the responding party had received formal notice of the hearing time from the Board and that relying on the union's alleged representation was done at its own risk.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a site-specific bargaining unit of employees at a single movie theatre complex.

The responding party employer argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should encompass multiple theatres in the Metropolitan Toronto area to avoid fragmentation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the site-specific bargaining unit was appropriate for collective bargaining, consistent with previous Board decisions.

As the union demonstrated support from more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the unit, the Board ordered that a certificate issue.

The applicant union sought certification for two bargaining units of front-of-house staff at movie theatres operated by the responding party in Brampton and Scarborough.

The responding party argued for a broader geographical bargaining unit encompassing the Greater Toronto Area, mirroring the scope clause of an existing collective agreement for projectionists.

The Board found that the single-theatre and municipal units proposed by the applicant were viable and appropriate for collective bargaining, noting the obstacles to organizing on a broader basis.

The Board granted the applications and issued certificates for both bargaining units.

The union applied for certification and subsequently, the employer installed video surveillance cameras in the workplace following damage to a machine.

The union alleged this violated the statutory freeze and other provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the installation of cameras altered a working condition or privilege, violating the statutory freeze under section 81(2).

The Board also found the installation was an unusual and extreme reaction motivated in part by anti-union animus, violating sections 65, 67, 71, and 82(1) of the Act.

The employer was ordered to remove the cameras.

The applicant unions alleged that the Red Cross and various home care agencies and service providers violated the replacement worker provisions of the Labour Relations Act when clients were reassigned to other agencies during a lawful strike by Red Cross homemakers.

The Board found that the other agencies were not acting on behalf of the Red Cross and were not employers of the striking workers, dismissing the replacement worker complaints.

However, the Board found that the Red Cross violated sections 65, 67(c), and 71 of the Act by making intimidating statements to employees, threatening job loss if they exercised their right to strike.

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

The employer argued that five individuals classified as site supervisors exercised managerial functions under section 1(3) of the Labour Relations Act and should be excluded.

The Board reviewed the duties of a representative site supervisor, finding that the vast majority of his time was spent performing the same duties as other security guards.

His supervisory functions were minimal, consisting mainly of scheduling and reporting incidents, without independent disciplinary or hiring authority.

The Board concluded the site supervisors functioned as lead hands rather than managers, and included them in the bargaining unit.

A final certificate was issued.

The union applied for certification of a group of unrepresented employees at the Salvation Army's Mental Health Services in Metropolitan Toronto, and sought to combine this new unit with an existing unit it already represented.

The employer argued for four separate bargaining units based on location and function.

Applying the Hospital for Sick Children test, the Board found the union's proposed comprehensive unit appropriate, noting it avoided the labour relations problems associated with fragmentation.

Following certification, the Board ordered the combination of the new and existing bargaining units on the agreement of the parties.