Employment and Labour Law

The applicant union sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to postpone the hospital's implementation of alternative placement and layoff notices affecting registered practical nurses.

The union alleged the hospital's actions were motivated by anti-union animus and intended to decimate the newly certified bargaining unit during first collective agreement negotiations.

The Board found the union had an arguable case and that the balance of harm favoured granting the interim relief, as the union's position was precarious after three years without a collective agreement.

The Board directed the hospital to restore and maintain the status quo pending the expedited hearing of the main complaint.

The union referred construction industry grievances to arbitration, arguing that a cross-over clause in the sewer and watermain collective agreement bound the responding employer to pay union rates for road building work.

The employer, who was not a member of the accredited employers' organization, argued that the organization's bargaining authority was limited to the sewer and watermain sector.

The Board held that the statutory accreditation scheme is based on sectoral bargaining and does not impose rights by operation of law beyond the specified sector.

Therefore, the cross-over clause did not apply to the non-member employer in the road building sector.

The Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 30 filed a complaint concerning the assignment of work by Groff & Associates Ltd. to members of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry, Local 599.

The applicant argued the work should have been assigned to a composite crew based on an Interim National Agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the dominant prevailing area and employer practice favoured the assignment to the UA, and the applicant had no collective bargaining relationship with the employer.

The applicant employer sought restrictions on picketing at a non-struck grocery store located in a shopping mall, pursuant to section 11.1(5) of the Labour Relations Act.

The union, engaged in a lawful strike at other locations, picketed the receiving dock, forcing delivery trucks to unload across the parking lot.

The Board found that while the picketing did not completely disrupt the store's operations, the resulting unloading process across a large, icy parking lot created unsafe working conditions.

The Board held this constituted "undue disruption" and concluded that restrictions on the distance over which unloading occurred were appropriate to ensure safety, though it declined to restrict a two-hour delay between trucks that had been agreed to by the parties.

The applicant union sought interim relief under section 92.1(1) of the Labour Relations Act to reinstate a discharged union supporter and to cease the unilateral alteration of another employee's terms and conditions of employment during a statutory freeze.

The Board dismissed the request for interim reinstatement, finding that the balance of labour relations harm did not favour intervention given the stage of collective bargaining and the pending first contract arbitration.

However, the Board granted interim relief regarding the statutory freeze, directing the employer to restore the employee's terms and conditions of employment to those in effect when notice to bargain was given.

The employer applied to combine two bargaining units represented by two separate local unions affiliated with the same international union.

The responding unions requested that the application be dismissed without a hearing because section 7(1) of the Labour Relations Act requires the employees to be represented by the same trade union.

The Board found that the two local unions were separate entities and dismissed the application without a hearing.

The applicant union alleged that the employer hospital violated the statutory freeze period under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act and the Labour Relations Act.

The employer had granted non-bargaining unit staff an extra week of vacation in exchange for a zero percent wage increase, but refused to grant the extra vacation to bargaining unit members unless they also agreed to the wage freeze, despite pending interest arbitration.

The Board found that the bargaining unit employees had a reasonable expectation to receive the same vacation benefit as non-union staff based on past practice.

The Board directed the employer to grant the bargaining unit employees the same compensation package granted to non-bargaining unit employees.

The applicant union applied under section 7 of the Labour Relations Act to combine seven separate bargaining units of front-of-house employees at various movie theatres operated by the responding party in Ontario.

The employer opposed the application, arguing that the union should have requested combination at the time of certification and that geographically separate units should remain distinct.

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.

A dissenting opinion would have kept the Guelph and Sudbury locations as separate units to allow for more local decision-making.

The employer filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the union breached its duty to bargain in good faith by submitting new and previously withdrawn items to a first contract arbitration board.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that interest arbitration is a substitute for bargaining and the statute does not restrict arbitration submissions to items previously negotiated.

The Board also declined to exercise its discretion to inquire into the complaint, noting the arbitration board had already assumed jurisdiction and ruled on the disputed items.

The applicant trade union sought declarations under section 64 and subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that several corporate responding parties constituted a single employer and were bound by the provincial collective agreement.

Several responding parties failed to file responses or produce documents as ordered by the Board.

The Board drew adverse inferences from this failure.

The Board found that Gaspo, Central Forming, Ashworth, and Pamina carried on related activities under common control or direction and declared them to be one employer bound by the collective agreement.

The application was dismissed with respect to Altracon, as the Board found no common control or direction or sale of a business involving that entity.

The related employers were held jointly and severally liable for damages flowing from the current grievances, but not for past damages.

The applicant trade union requested leave to withdraw its jurisdictional dispute complaint.

The responding trade union opposed the withdrawal, arguing the Board should proceed to determine the merits of the work assignment dispute.

The Board noted its discretion under section 91(1.1) of the Labour Relations Act and found that the underlying grievance remained unresolved and the dispute over the correct assignment of work continued to exist.

The Board refused to grant leave to withdraw the complaint and referred the matter to the Registrar to schedule a consultation.

The union applied for a declaration that Sanford's Roadhouse Restaurant was a successor employer to the Waverly Hotel and therefore bound by its collective agreement.

The predecessor hotel had closed, and its assets were seized by a creditor.

Thirteen months later, the purchaser bought the building and some chattels, extensively renovated the premises, and opened a restaurant with a different business focus.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while certain assets were transferred, an ongoing enterprise was not.

The Board concluded there was no sale of a business and dismissed the application.

The applicants applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the union for the full-time and part-time bargaining units at a pharmacy in Orangeville.

The union raised a preliminary objection, arguing that a Memorandum of Agreement had combined the Orangeville units with an Ottawa-Carleton unit, and therefore the application lacked the requisite 45% support in the combined unit.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the bargaining units defined in the collective agreements remained separate for the purposes of the termination application.

On the merits, the Board found that the petition in support of decertification was voluntary and directed that representation votes be taken.

In an ongoing certification application, the applicant union was certified on an interim basis pending the determination of the employee status of a Discharge Planning Co-ordinator.

Following a Board Officer's examination and the submission of written representations, the responding party employer requested an oral hearing to make further submissions.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the request, finding that the detailed written submissions were sufficient to make a full and fair determination without an oral hearing.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a deemed sale of a business occurred under section 64.2 of the Labour Relations Act when the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place leased a building to Medieval Times.

Medieval Times subsequently contracted out cleaning services to a non-unionized company, whereas the union had previously cleaned the building for the Board of Governors.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the transaction constituted a deemed sale of a business, finding that the 'premises' encompassed the entirety of Exhibition Place, that the employer had ceased in part to provide services at those premises, and that substantially similar services were subsequently provided under the direction of another employer.

Medieval Times was declared bound by the union's notice to bargain.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the union violated section 74(4) of the Labour Relations Act by failing to conduct a strike vote by secret ballot.

The union raised a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint due to undue delay.

The Board found that the applicant was aware of the alleged irregularities at the time of the vote but delayed filing the complaint for nearly two months, during which time the union and employer relied on the strike mandate and commenced a strike.

The Board concluded that the delay was significant and unexplained, and exercised its discretion to dismiss the application without inquiring into the merits.

The applicant union filed a complaint alleging that the responding employer engaged in an unlawful lock-out by refusing to allow employees to work while wearing union T-shirts.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that wearing the T-shirts was a lawful activity protected by the Labour Relations Act.

The Board concluded that the employer's refusal to allow these employees to work constituted an unlawful lock-out and that the employer violated the Act by using the services of bargaining unit employees during the lock-out.

The Board ordered the employer to cease and desist from using such services.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of hostel employees employed by the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

The intervener union argued the application should be dismissed because the applicant's constitution restricted membership to employees of the Crown, its agencies, or private employers, rendering municipal employees ineligible.

The Board found that the municipality was a public sector employer and not a 'private employer' within the meaning of the applicant's constitution.

As the applicant lacked an established practice of admitting persons outside its constitutional eligibility requirements, the application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant union sought a single employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act following the closure of a unionized warehouse and the transfer of its work to a newly consolidated, non-unionized warehouse operated by a related corporate entity.

The responding parties conceded they carried on related activities under common control but argued against the declaration on the basis of employee wishes and corporate reorganization.

The Board granted the declaration, finding that the corporate reorganization incidentally undermined established bargaining rights and that the employer could not rely on the situation it created to deny the declaration.

The union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board seeking unpaid wages and benefits from the corporate employer and its director personally.

The employer had been petitioned into bankruptcy.

The Board found the corporate employer liable for the unpaid amounts under the collective agreement.

However, the Board dismissed the claim against the director personally, holding that its jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act to interpret employment-related statutes does not extend to enforcing statutory director liability under the Business Corporations Act or Employment Standards Act against a person who is not a party to the collective agreement.