Employment and Labour Law

The union applied for interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking the reinstatement of 23 employees laid off shortly after an application for certification was filed.

The union alleged the layoffs were motivated by anti-union animus, while the employer claimed they were due to a seasonal shortage of work.

The Board found the union established an arguable case but balanced the harm by ordering the employer to provide work equivalent to two full shifts, rather than reinstating all 23 employees, as the employer failed to explain the sudden reduction from two planned shifts to one.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of hotel employees, specifically excluding front desk staff.

The respondent employer opposed the exclusion, arguing that it would cause serious labour relations problems due to fragmentation and the cross-utilization of front desk staff for housekeeping and food service tasks.

Applying the Hospital for Sick Children test, the Ontario Labour Relations Board found the proposed unit appropriate, concluding that the employer's concerns about jurisdictional disputes and strike complications were speculative and could be accommodated in collective bargaining.

A certificate was issued to the applicant, with one Board Member dissenting on the basis that excluding front desk staff would unduly fragment labour relations.

The union applied to combine two bargaining units of front-of-house movie theatre employees located in Toronto and Ottawa into a single unit under section 7 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer opposed the combination, arguing that the geographic and administrative disparity meant combination would not reduce fragmentation and would cause serious labour relations problems.

The Board found that combining the units would reduce fragmentation and facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining without causing serious labour relations problems, and ordered the combination.

One Board Member dissented, expressing concern over the efficacy of combining units in Toronto and Ottawa.

The applicant union filed an application under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act alleging a sale of a business from Circle Inn Limited to Syl-Shar Holdings Inc. The predecessor employer agreed to the material facts, and the responding party did not file a response.

The Board accepted the undisputed facts as true and declared the responding party to be a successor employer to whom a part of the business had been sold.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A preliminary issue arose regarding the applicant's ability to accept the proposed bargaining unit employees into membership.

In a prior decision, the Board had dismissed an application because the union's constitution did not permit such membership.

The union subsequently amended its constitution at a Special Meeting.

An intervenor argued the amendment was invalid because the constitution required amendments to be made at an annual conference.

The Board held that the procedures used were substantially consistent with the union's internal rules, noting the delegates at the Special Meeting were identical to those entitled to vote at the annual conference.

The Board concluded the amendment was effective and the union could admit the employees into membership.

The applicant union filed a grievance seeking a declaration that the responding party employer was bound by the provincial ICI collective agreement.

The employer's predecessor had joined the Sarnia Construction Association as a full member, thereby assigning its bargaining rights to the Association, which in turn was a member of the designated Employer Bargaining Agency.

The Board found that by virtue of its membership in the Association, the employer was bound by the provincial ICI agreement across Ontario.

The Board rejected the employer's argument for an indefinite estoppel, ruling instead that the employer was only estopped from applying the agreement to contracts bid on or commenced prior to the date of the decision.

The applicant filed a complaint against the responding party union alleging a failure to act in good faith.

The applicant subsequently signed a request to withdraw the application, which the Board granted.

Several months later, the applicant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of the withdrawal decision, arguing he misapprehended the nature of the form.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration due to the applicant's unexplained delay in raising the issue after receiving the Board's decision confirming the withdrawal.

The applicant union sought interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the employer refused to meet to bargain and prohibited all union communication at the workplace.

The employer had refused to bargain pending its request for reconsideration of the union's interim certification.

The Board found an arguable case that the employer's conduct violated the Act and that the balance of harm favoured the union.

The Board ordered the employer to meet with the union to bargain in good faith and to permit the posting of union notices in the workplace.

The union applied for certification of employees at a retail store.

The employer and a group of objecting employees argued that the application should be dismissed or a representation vote ordered because the employee who initiated the organizing campaign exercised managerial functions or was employed in a confidential capacity regarding labour relations.

They also alleged that the membership evidence was obtained through misrepresentations and undue influence.

The Board found that the employee in question did not exercise managerial functions or act in a confidential capacity, and that the membership evidence was reliable.

The union was certified.

The applicant union alleged that the responding employers' association breached a subcontracting clause in their collective agreement.

The clause required the association to subcontract bricklaying only to companies in contractual relations with the applicant or another specific union, provided the two unions formed a 'common Union' by a specified deadline.

The unions formed a certified council of trade unions to meet this requirement.

The Board held that a certified council of trade unions did not constitute a 'common Union' within the meaning of the agreement, as the two unions maintained separate legal and practical existences.

Consequently, the subcontracting clause expired.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer, alleging intimidation and the retaliatory layoff of a key union supporter during an organizing drive.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by interrogating and threatening one employee and abruptly laying off another upon discovering the union's presence.

Concluding that the employer's swift and severe actions made it unlikely that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained, the Board granted certification under section 9.2 of the Act.

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

The employer challenged whether the strike was authorized by a secret ballot vote as required by section 74(4).

The Board found that the strike vote was conducted in an open manner where union officials and other employees could observe how ballots were marked.

Consequently, the strike vote did not meet the statutory requirement for a secret ballot, meaning the replacement worker prohibitions in section 73.1 did not apply.

The application and a subsequent request for reconsideration were dismissed.

The union referred construction industry grievances to arbitration, alleging the employer breached the sewer and watermain collective agreement by failing to use union members or make required remittances.

The employer argued the union had abandoned its bargaining rights in the road building sector through disuse.

The Board found that the union had not abandoned its bargaining rights, noting its previous picketing activity and enforcement of rights in the sewers and watermains sector.

The Board reserved its decision on whether the employer was bound by a cross-over clause in the agreement, pending notice to the accredited employer association.

The applicant union sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to reinstate two resident superintendents who were discharged during a union organizing campaign.

The Board applied its established test for interim relief, finding that the union had made out an arguable case of an unfair labour practice.

Balancing the harm, the Board concluded that the chilling effect of the discharges on the organizing campaign outweighed the employer's concerns about the employees' continued presence, especially since the employees still resided at the property.

The Board ordered the interim reinstatement of the employees pending the disposition of the main complaint.

The applicants, employees of a daycare centre, sought interim reinstatement under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act after being terminated shortly after presenting collective demands to their employer.

The employer argued the Act did not protect them as they were not formally represented by a trade union.

The Board found an arguable case that the employees' rudimentary efforts to organize for collective bargaining were protected under the Act.

Concluding that the balance of harm favoured the applicants, the Board ordered their interim reinstatement pending the disposition of the main unfair labour practice complaint.

The applicant union applied for certification and a representation vote was held, resulting in a tie.

The union subsequently objected to the vote, arguing that one voter was managerial and another eligible employee was omitted from the voter's list.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the objections without an oral hearing, finding that the union had signed a Consent and Waiver Form agreeing to count the first voter's ballot and had agreed to the voter's list prior to the vote.

The Board held that it would be inequitable and an abuse of process to allow the union to resile from its agreements.

The application for certification was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance against the employer for violating the subcontracting provision of the provincial collective agreement by subcontracting final clean-up work to a non-union company.

In a prior decision, the Board found the employer liable.

In this remedy phase, the employer argued the union must prove that a union subcontractor had the specific expertise and equipment to perform the work.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that the union only needed to prove it had unemployed members available to perform the work, which it did.

The Board found the union entitled to damages for lost work opportunities and directed the parties to finalize the calculations.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at a nursing home.

The employer argued that Registered Nurses and the Activity Director should be excluded from the unit because they exercised managerial functions under section 1(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board reviewed the duties of both positions, finding that the Registered Nurses' supervisory and reporting functions were professional rather than managerial, and that the Activity Director did not exercise effective control over employees or important aspects of the employer's business.

The Board concluded that neither position exercised managerial functions and issued a final certificate for the bargaining unit.

The applicant union sought certification for employees at a single gas bar location in Thunder Bay.

The responding party employer argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should encompass both of its gas bar locations in the municipality to avoid fragmentation.

The Board found that the single location was a viable grouping for collective bargaining and that requiring a multi-location unit might seriously impede access to collective bargaining in an industry that has not traditionally been organized.

A representation vote was ordered for the single-location unit.

One Board Member dissented, arguing that splitting the organization into two groups would cause serious labour relations difficulties.

The applicant union filed unfair labour practice complaints against the responding party, a successor employer providing security services.

The responding party brought preliminary motions to dismiss the complaints, arguing that the union's three-and-a-half month delay in filing prejudiced its ability to defend the claims, and that the statutory freeze under section 81(2) of the Labour Relations Act did not apply because it had not received formal Board notice of the certification application prior to the successorship.

The Board dismissed the delay motion, finding the delay was short and any prejudice could be addressed remedially.

The Board also dismissed the notice motion, interpreting section 64(3) of the Act to mean that the statutory freeze environment flows through to the successor employer regardless of whether it received formal Board notice.