Employment and Labour Law

The applicant union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the employer interfered with its organizing campaign through bulletins, warnings to organizers, and the announcement of wage and benefit increases.

The Board found that the employer violated sections 65 and 67 of the Labour Relations Act by issuing coercive bulletins, arbitrarily enforcing a no-solicitation rule against organizers, and announcing benefits in a manner that constituted undue influence.

However, the Board declined to grant certification without a vote under section 9.2, concluding that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained through a representation vote following extensive remedial orders, including the posting of notices and union access to the workplace.

The applicant trade union sought a declaration that it was the successor trade union to an association.

The responding party employer argued the association was not a "trade union" under the Labour Relations Act because it permitted managerial employees to be members.

The Board held that the admission of non-employees into membership does not preclude an organization from being considered a trade union under the Act.

The Board directed the parties to a pre-hearing conference to resolve remaining issues.

The Minister referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 3(2) of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, asking whether Branch 133 Legion Village is a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Act.

The Board concluded that the Village, which provides residential accommodation and health care assistance for seniors, qualifies as a 'home for the aged' and therefore falls within the statutory definition of a hospital.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 3(2) of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act regarding whether Barclay House, a retirement home, is a hospital within the meaning of the Act.

The Board advised the Minister that Barclay House is a hospital because it is a home for the aged.

The Board found that a major component of the service offered by Barclay House is the observation and assessment of its aged residents, which satisfies the statutory definition, regardless of whether the observation is strictly medical in nature.

The United Steelworkers of America applied for certification to represent employees at Royalguard Vinyl Co. The company and an intervening employee alleged that union organizers used threats and intimidation to coerce employees into signing membership cards.

After a 40-day hearing, the Ontario Labour Relations Board (majority) found the company's witnesses lacked credibility and that the allegations of threats were unsubstantiated.

The Board applied the collateral fact rule to exclude certain cross-examination questions aimed at impeaching a union witness.

Finding the union's membership evidence reliable and demonstrating support of more than 55% of the bargaining unit, the Board certified the union without a representation vote.

One Board Member dissented, arguing that the union's witnesses lacked credibility and a representation vote should have been ordered.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, noting that section 2(1)(f) of the Act explicitly excludes teachers.

The applicant argued that this exclusion violated section 7 of the Charter by depriving him of the right to hold his union accountable, which he claimed affected his right to practice his profession.

The Board rejected the Charter argument, holding that section 7 does not protect economic interests or the right to engage in a particular profession.

The union applied for remedial relief following a Board decision directing the combination of full-time and part-time bargaining units.

The union alleged the employer failed to respond to attempts to negotiate a merged collective agreement.

The Board declined to immediately re-list the matter for hearing, reminding the parties of their duty to bargain the consequences of the combination order.

The Board directed the union to provide a detailed description of the requested remedies and material facts, and the employer to respond, before determining whether and when to re-list the matter.

The applicant, a cleaner with a thyroid condition, was suspended for refusing to wear her uniform bow-tie done up to the second button, as it aggravated her condition.

She wore it at the third button instead.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that her refusal to wear the clothing in a manner she reasonably believed would endanger her health constituted an attempt to enforce the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board held that the employer's suspensions amounted to unlawful reprisals under section 50(1) of the Act, and ordered her reinstated with full compensation and permitted to wear the tie at the third button.

The applicant union sought interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to reinstate an employee benefit plan and wage rates that the employer allegedly changed without consent during first collective agreement negotiations.

The Board found an arguable case of a violation of the statutory freeze provisions.

However, the Board dismissed the application for interim relief due to the union's significant delay in filing the application, which undermined the urgency and need for an interim remedy.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to displace the incumbent union.

The incumbent union had previously given notice to extend the collective agreement under section 35 of the Social Contract Act, 1993.

The Board found that the notice to extend was valid and extended the collective agreement to March 31, 1996.

As a result, the application for certification was untimely because it was filed when no open period was present for the extended collective agreement.

The application was dismissed.

The employer requested reconsideration of a Board decision ordering it to cease using replacement workers during a strike.

The employer sought to resile from its earlier agreement that the union's strike vote complied with the Labour Relations Act, citing newly acquired information about the vote's conduct.

The Board dismissed the request, holding that parties are bound by their agreements and tactical decisions made during hearings, and permitting a party to reopen issues based on after-acquired information would undermine the finality of Board proceedings.

The applicant filed two complaints alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to take his grievance regarding his removal from the seniority list to arbitration.

The Board dismissed the applications as premature, noting that the grievance was still in the grievance procedure and no final determination had been made about whether it would proceed to arbitration.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the applicant's right to file a new application in a timely way.

The applicant union sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act regarding changes to drivers' working conditions implemented by the responding employer without union input.

The union argued the changes violated the statutory freeze under section 81(1) of the Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the interim direction, ordering the employer to rescind the new arrangements and return the situation to what it was prior to the changes, pending bargaining in good faith.

The applicants sought reconsideration of a Board decision declaring the Steelworkers a successor union.

During the hearing, the responding employer and the Steelworkers moved for early dismissal of the reconsideration application.

The applicants and the UFCW argued the moving parties must first elect whether to call evidence.

The Board held it has discretion to entertain a non-suit or early dismissal motion without requiring an election, and declined to require an election in this case given the need for expedition and cost-sensitivity.

However, the Board dismissed the motion on its merits, finding the moving parties' arguments related to the weight of the evidence rather than a complete lack of evidence.

The union applied for an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to reinstate three employees who were terminated during a union organizing campaign.

The Board found that the union established an arguable case that the terminations violated the Act.

Applying the balance of harm test, the Board declined to reinstate one employee due to significant health and safety risks associated with his operation of a forklift.

However, the Board ordered the interim reinstatement of the other two employees, finding that the harm to the union's organizing campaign outweighed the employer's concerns regarding their alleged workplace misconduct.

The union applied for certification and filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the employer discharged a union supporter and engaged in a pervasive campaign of interference during an organizing drive.

The Board found that the discharge was motivated by a bona fide belief of theft, not anti-union animus, and that the employer's frequent written communications fell within the bounds of free speech.

However, the Board held that the employer breached the Act by prohibiting union solicitation on company property during an employee's vacation, promising to clear discipline records, removing last names from schedules, and granting an unprecedented Christmas bonus as an inducement.

The Board concluded these violations were not so serious as to prevent the ascertainment of employees' true wishes under section 8.

The applicant local union sought interim relief in connection with an unfair labour practice complaint, requesting an order directing the respondent employer to remit union dues to the local's officers rather than the trustee appointed by the parent union.

The local had purportedly disaffiliated from the parent union, which responded by placing the local under trusteeship.

The employer, caught in the middle, placed the dues in trust.

The Board dismissed the application for interim relief, finding that the local had not made out an arguable case that the trusteeship or the employer's neutral stance constituted an unfair labour practice, and that the Board should not use its interim powers to confirm a dubious disaffiliation process.

The responding party employer raised a preliminary objection to a grievance referral, arguing that the applicant union had abandoned its bargaining rights.

The employer had signed a voluntary recognition agreement but later ceased applying it, operating non-union.

The Board found that the union was reasonably unaware that the employer was operating non-union during the relevant period, as the employer used a related company's name on job sites.

The Board concluded that the union's actions, including filing a grievance and an application for certification, were consistent with an assertion of bargaining rights, and therefore the union had not abandoned its rights.

The applicant union alleged that a sale of a business occurred when the predecessor hospital transferred its laboratory services to the successor hospital.

The hospitals conceded the sale but argued that the operations and employees were intermingled, justifying the termination of the union's bargaining rights.

The Board found that intermingling had occurred and that the union's proposed bargaining unit, limited to the 'stat' laboratory at the predecessor hospital, was not appropriate due to the integration of the services.

Given that the unionized employees constituted a small minority of the successor's paramedical staff, the Board declined to order a representation vote and declared the union's bargaining rights terminated effective the date of the sale.

The applicant employer sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to restrict picketing at one of its stores by striking employees from other locations.

The employer argued the picketing breached the common law and caused undue disruption.

The majority of the Board dismissed the application, finding that the balance of harm favoured the union, given the delay in bringing the application, the imminent conclusion of the main hearing, and the significant impact an interim order would have on the employees' statutory right to picket.

A dissenting member would have granted the interim relief.