Employment and Labour Law

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the employer's manufacturing plant.

The employer argued that the appropriate unit should include employees at both its plant and its distribution yard, located 1.8 kilometres away, asserting that a plant-only unit would cause serious labour relations problems due to employee interchange and operational interdependence.

The Board found that the level of employee interchange was not significant or regular enough to cause serious labour relations problems if restricted.

The Board determined that the plant-only unit was appropriate and, finding that more than 55 percent of the employees in the unit were members of the union, ordered that a certificate issue.

The Euclid-Hitachi Employees Association applied for certification to displace the incumbent CAW.

The CAW argued the application should be barred due to a recently dismissed termination application, that the Association was not a valid trade union, and that the employer had provided unlawful support to the Association.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the application was not barred because the prior termination application did not result in a vote.

The Board further found that the Association met the statutory definition of a trade union and that the evidence did not establish employer support or interference.

The Board directed that the ballots from the pre-hearing representation vote be counted.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the application on all three grounds.

The applicant union filed an application under section 64.2 of the Labour Relations Act alleging a deemed sale of a business from the predecessor employer to the responding party security services company.

The responding party failed to file a response by the terminal date, despite acknowledging receipt of the notice.

The union requested that the Board apply Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure to deem the facts accepted and grant the application without a hearing.

The Board found that the pleaded facts established a deemed sale of a business, as the predecessor ceased providing security services at the site and the responding party subsequently provided substantially similar services.

The Board applied Rule 19, deemed the facts accepted, and granted the application, declaring that a sale of a business had occurred and that the union's bargaining rights continued.

The applicant union applied for certification and submitted membership evidence, including ten cards received by mail.

The employer challenged the weight of the mailed cards because the union's Form A-4 declarant did not personally contact the employees to verify they had signed the cards, relying instead only on the fact that the cards were received in sealed business reply envelopes.

The Board held that without further verification or corroborating circumstances, it would not give full evidentiary weight to the mailed cards.

Consequently, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The union applied for certification.

The employer alleged that union organizers and supporters made material misrepresentations and threats to job security during the organizing campaign, specifically telling employees they would not be protected if they did not sign union cards.

The Board found that paid union organizers did not make such statements.

While a fellow employee may have made ambiguous statements, they did not amount to intimidation or a material misrepresentation that would invalidate the membership evidence.

The Board granted an interim certificate.

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

The employer argued that the unit was inappropriate because the union already represented other employees at the facility, creating a conflict of interest.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that under section 6(6) of the Labour Relations Act, a bargaining unit consisting solely of guards is deemed appropriate, and the Board has no jurisdiction to restrict the guards' choice of trade union based on conflict of interest concerns.

The application for certification was granted.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the responding employer.

The dispute arose when the employer assigned mechanic's work to an improver helper who had passed his exams, without first obtaining a referral from the union's hiring hall.

When the union refused to issue a mechanic's card due to unemployed mechanics on the out-of-work list, the employer deemed the employee to have resigned for refusing the assignment.

The Board held that the employer violated the hiring hall provisions of the collective agreement by failing to use the union as the first source of job applicants before reclassifying the employee.

The grievance was allowed, and the employee was found to have been terminated without just cause.

The unfair labour practice complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union sought interim relief under section 92.1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, requesting that the successor employers be ordered to provide a pension plan equivalent to the Public Service Pension Plan pending the disposition of the main application.

The main application alleged that the employers violated the statutory freeze under section 81(1) by altering the pension plan.

The Board found that the applicant had demonstrated an arguable case and that the balance of harm favoured granting the interim relief to restore the collective bargaining positions of the parties.

The Board ordered the employers to provide the equivalent pension plan forthwith.

The applicant union sought interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, requesting an order that the responding party employer re-open a logging camp that had recently been closed.

The union alleged the employer failed to disclose the impending closure during collective bargaining.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the balance of harm strongly favoured the employer.

The harm alleged by the union was primarily financial and could be remedied if the main application succeeded.

Furthermore, the union failed to act promptly, waiting until after the camp had closed and equipment had been moved before filing the application.

The applicant union filed a construction industry grievance and a related employer application against Maaten Construction Limited and Days Inn.

The union alleged that Maaten, acting as a construction manager for Days Inn, contravened the subcontracting provision of the provincial agreement by soliciting bids from non-union contractors.

The Board found that Maaten breached the agreement regarding the foundation work but awarded no damages as the work was ultimately performed by union members.

The Board dismissed the related employer application, finding that Maaten did not acquire the right or obligation to perform the work contracted out by Days Inn.

The applicant union alleged a violation of the Labour Relations Act, arguing that a change in security contractors at a building constituted a sale of a business under the deemed successorship provisions of section 64.2.

The Board issued a preliminary ruling on whether the new contractor's services fell within the scope of the section.

The majority held that the concierge and access control duties performed by the new contractor were security services related to servicing the premises, and were substantially similar to the services provided by the predecessor, despite the elimination of a dedicated patrol position.

The applicant unions filed a jurisdictional dispute application under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the assignment of re-roofing work at a paper mill.

The employer had assigned the work to the applicant sheet metal workers, but the responding carpenters' union claimed the work should have been assigned to its members.

After a consultation, the Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the assignment of the disputed work to the sheet metal workers was proper.

The union referred several grievances to arbitration, alleging that the municipal employer violated the subcontracting provision of the collective agreement by engaging outside contractors not in contractual relations with the union.

The Board interpreted the subcontracting provision, which was imposed during first contract arbitration, as restricting the employer's ability to let subcontracts but not prime contracts.

Applying this distinction, the Board dismissed five of the six grievances, finding that the contracts in question were either prime contracts, involved maintenance rather than construction work, or did not involve work covered by the collective agreement.

One grievance was allowed, as the Board found the contract was in the nature of a subcontract for work that would otherwise have been performed by the employer's own employees.

The applicant sought certification as the bargaining agent for employees of the responding party, seeking to displace the incumbent union.

As the applicant had not previously established its status as a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, a hearing was held.

The intervenor argued that the applicant failed to strictly follow the Board's five-step procedure for establishing trade union status, specifically regarding the ratification of its constitution and quorum requirements.

The Board found that the applicant substantially complied with the requirements, noting that the employees' actions at the organizational meeting demonstrated a clear intention to form a trade union and be bound by its constitution.

The Board concluded that the applicant is a viable organization capable of carrying out its statutory obligations and declared it a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Act.

The Board of Governors of Exhibition Place brought a jurisdictional dispute complaint concerning the assignment of work for erecting and dismantling flats and risers for Bridal Shows at the Queen Elizabeth Exhibition Hall.

The work was performed by Elite Show Services for Klanside Inc., who had licensed the hall.

The dispute was between I.A.T.S.E. Local 58 and Labourers Local 506.

The Board applied the Canada Millwrights factors and found that the collective agreement and inherent jurisdictional claim of I.A.T.S.E. Local 58 outweighed the employer practice and economy/efficiency factors favouring Labourers Local 506.

The Board declared the work properly within the jurisdiction of I.A.T.S.E. Local 58 and directed that future assignments for Bridal Shows be made to its members.

The applicant employees applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding union.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the employee petitions filed in support were not voluntary.

The Board concluded that the active involvement of lead hands—who were perceived by employees as linked to management—in originating and circulating the petitions during working hours would likely lead employees to believe the petitions were supported or condoned by management.

A subsequent request for reconsideration was also dismissed, as it raised no new issues or evidence that could not have been presented at the initial hearing.

The union applied for certification of employees providing cleaning services at two specific schools.

The employer argued for a broader municipal or regional bargaining unit, citing its integrated workforce and central administration.

The Board found that the site-specific bargaining units proposed by the union were appropriate, noting that the workforce was stable with limited interchange between locations, and that site-specific units would not cause serious labour relations problems.

The union referred two grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the employers violated the provincial collective agreement by refusing to pay a $70.00 per diem travel allowance to employees working in a designated geographic zone.

The employers argued that the allowance was only payable if employees incurred overnight accommodation expenses, and that they could require proof of actual expenses.

The Board held that the plain language of the collective agreement entitled employees to the allowance whenever they worked a day in the zone, regardless of whether they incurred accommodation expenses.

The agreement only permitted a reduction in the allowance if the employer and the union agreed.

The grievances were allowed.

The applicant union sought a declaration that its bargaining rights bound the responding party, Heritage Green Senior Centre, following the Ministry of Health's takeover and subsequent reallocation of nursing home beds from the revoked license of Saint Elizabeth Nursing Home.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the Ministry's operation of the home constituted a Crown undertaking, and the issuance of a new license to Heritage Green, along with the transfer of residents, constituted a transfer of that undertaking.

The Board further held that valid bargaining rights existed and that intermingling of employees had occurred.

The application was allowed, and the collective agreement was declared to apply as of the date of transfer without the need for a representation vote.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party security services company.

The parties disagreed on the bargaining unit description, specifically whether it should include 'all employees' or just 'security guards', and whether the geographic scope should be the Regional Municipality of Sudbury or the broader District of Sudbury.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board accepted the union's proposed 'all employee' unit, noting the relaxation of legislative restrictions on security guards.

The Board also accepted the union's geographic scope of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury, finding it to be an appropriate unit that would not generate serious labour relations problems.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.