Employment and Labour Law

The applicant union sought a determination under section 73.2(12) of the Labour Relations Act regarding the employer's use of specified replacement workers during a strike at its brewery.

The employer argued that replacement workers were necessary to operate the power plant to prevent danger to life, health, or safety, and to prevent serious deterioration of equipment.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while an engineer was required to monitor the plant even if production ceased, the employer already had two managerial employees capable of safely operating the plant.

The Board concluded that the employer failed to establish that additional specified replacement workers were necessary within the meaning of section 73.2(3).

The application was granted and the employer was prohibited from using the specified replacement workers.

The applicant union filed a complaint alleging that the employer improperly assigned occasional teacher work to members of another union.

The employer and the responding union argued that the dispute involved interpreting the Education Act and should be left to the Minister of Education.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that it has jurisdiction under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act to resolve work assignment disputes, even if the assignment might also violate another statute.

The Board directed the parties to file lists of tasks, witnesses, and evidence in preparation for a hearing.

The applicant employer sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to stay a 'bottom line' certification decision pending the issuance of detailed written reasons and the disposition of an application for reconsideration.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the harm to the union and the employees caused by further delay in the certification process significantly outweighed any potential harm to the employer.

The Board emphasized that expedition is critical in labour relations and that staying a decision to allow a party to assess its position for judicial review would undermine the purpose of issuing bottom line decisions.

The union filed an application alleging the employer violated section 41.1 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to negotiate an adjustment plan following the announcement of a major workforce reduction.

During the proceedings, the parties engaged in collective bargaining and reached a new collective agreement that addressed the rights of surplus employees.

The employer argued the application was moot.

The Board agreed, finding that the parties had practically resolved the issues by negotiating adjustment plan matters during collective bargaining.

The Board dismissed the application on the grounds of mootness and declined to grant remedial relief, noting it would serve no labour relations purpose.

The applicant trade union sought certification for employees at a Canadian Tire outlet.

Objecting employees challenged the constitutionality of section 8(4) of the Labour Relations Act, which precludes the Board from considering post-application evidence of employees revoking union support, arguing it violated their Charter rights to freedom of expression, association, and equality.

The Board dismissed the Charter challenges, finding any infringement of expression was justified under section 1, and rejected claims of defective membership evidence based on alleged misrepresentations by rank-and-file organizers.

The Board also affirmed the appropriateness of the union's proposed 'all employee' bargaining unit and determined that a department manager did not exercise sufficient managerial authority to be excluded from the unit.

The applicant trade union alleged that the employer discharged two internal union organizers during an organizing drive for reasons related to their trade union activities, in violation of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the employer's explanations for the discharges were implausible and that the decisions were tainted by anti-union animus.

The Board also found that the employer's subsequent work assignments upon the employees' interim reinstatement were discriminatory and constituted further violations of the Act.

The Board ordered the permanent reinstatement of the employees with compensation for lost wages.

The applicant, an owner-operator, filed a complaint alleging the union breached sections 70 and 82(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant alleged the union acted arbitrarily by transferring him to a different pipeline loop and introducing a rotation system.

The Board dismissed this portion of the complaint, finding the union's actions were reasonable and in the best interests of the owner-operators.

However, the Board found the union violated section 82(2) by refusing to accept the applicant's union dues and renew his membership as a penalty for filing the complaint.

The Board ordered the union to compensate the applicant for lost earnings and restore his name to the dispatch list upon payment of dues.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer laid off an employee due to anti-union animus.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the application should be dismissed due to undue delay, as the union waited approximately eight and a half months after the layoff to file the complaint.

The Board applied the factors from the Mississauga decision and found that the delay was undue, particularly given the lack of justification provided by the union and the potential for retrospective financial liability.

The application was dismissed on the basis of undue delay without considering the merits.

The applicant union applied to certify a bargaining unit of 17 security officers and to combine it with an existing full-time bargaining unit of approximately 6,000 employees.

The employer opposed the combination, arguing that under section 6(6) of the Labour Relations Act, the security officers' duties of monitoring other employees would give rise to a conflict of interest if they were included in the same unit.

The Board heard evidence regarding the security officers' duties, which included monitoring access, conducting investigations, and preparing reports that could lead to discipline.

The Board concluded that the monitoring duties raised a real possibility of a conflict of interest, satisfying the test under section 6(6), and remitted the matters back to the parties.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by prohibiting editorial employees from wearing union buttons while meeting with the public on company business.

The Board found that wearing union buttons to support collective bargaining objectives is a lawful union activity protected by the Act.

The Board concluded that the employer's rule was inconsistently applied and motivated, at least in part, by an anti-union animus, thereby violating sections 65 and 67 of the Act.

A declaration of the violation was issued, though no further remedy was ordered.

The applicant filed an unfair labour practice complaint against his union and former employer, alleging multiple breaches of the Labour Relations Act over a seven-year period.

The respondents raised preliminary objections, including that the Vice-Chair lacked jurisdiction to sit alone and that the complaint should be dismissed for undue delay.

The Vice-Chair ruled he had jurisdiction to sit alone as an administrative decision by the Chair.

On the issue of delay, the Board dismissed most of the allegations, noting the critical importance of timeliness in the construction industry and hiring hall context.

However, the Board allowed the allegation regarding the applicant's removal from the hiring hall list following his expulsion from the union to proceed, finding the nine-month delay was not fatal given the severe impact of the removal and the ongoing internal union appeal.

The union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the employer laid off the grievor out of seniority order.

The employer argued that the grievor had lost his seniority when he failed to return to work following a telephone recall, and that the union was estopped from relying on the collective agreement's requirement for written notice by registered mail because it had acquiesced to telephone recalls in the past.

The Board found no estoppel, as the union had never agreed that employees could be stripped of seniority for failing to respond to a telephone recall.

Applying the strict language of the collective agreement, the Board held that the employer breached the agreement by removing the grievor's seniority without sending written notice by registered mail.

The Board directed that the grievor be reinstated with full seniority and compensated for lost income.

The applicants brought jurisdictional dispute applications regarding the assignment of work for the fabrication and installation of a monorail at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1000 raised a preliminary constitutional challenge, arguing that labour relations at the nuclear facility fall under federal jurisdiction.

The Board applied the functional test and determined that while the production of nuclear energy and its attendant safety concerns are within federal jurisdiction, the fabrication and installation of the monorail is not integral to the federal undertaking.

Having found it had jurisdiction, the Board directed Ontario Hydro to assign the work to the applicants based on collective agreements and historical practice.

The applicant, a union member, filed a complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act during the negotiation and ratification of a third shift agreement at the General Motors Oshawa truck plant.

The applicant also alleged that the union and company intimidated potential witnesses in violation of section 82.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union's conduct was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and that the ratification process was consistent with past practice.

The Board also found no evidence to support the allegations of intimidation.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied for certification to represent Case Managers employed by the Hamilton Program for Schizophrenia Inc. The parties agreed on all matters except the bargaining unit description.

The applicant sought a unit limited to Case Managers who are Registered and Graduate Nurses, while the responding party argued for a unit of all Case Managers.

The Board found that the applicant's proposed unit would cause serious labour relations problems due to fragmentation, applying the test from Hospital for Sick Children.

The Board determined that a unit of all Case Managers was appropriate and, as more than 55% of the employees in that unit had applied for membership, issued a certificate to the applicant.

The applicant union applied for certification.

During a teleconference with a Labour Relations Officer, the parties agreed on the bargaining unit description and the employee list, and the count was released showing the applicant in a certifiable position.

The responding party later retained new counsel and sought to resile from the agreed bargaining unit description, requesting the Board exercise its discretion under section 6(1) of the Labour Relations Act to amend it.

The Board declined to permit the responding party to resile from its agreement, finding no extraordinary circumstances to depart from its general rule that parties cannot alter their positions on the bargaining unit structure after the count has been given.

The Board found the agreed unit appropriate and directed the responding party to clarify its legal identity.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that water lancing work performed by the responding party at a nuclear power facility fell within the scope of the EPSCA collective agreement.

The Board considered whether the work constituted construction industry work or maintenance.

Finding that the water lancing was preventive maintenance designed to maintain boiler efficiency and prevent future repairs, the Board concluded it did not fall within the scope of the EPSCA agreement.

The application was dismissed to the extent it alleged a violation of that agreement.

The union applied for an interim order to reinstate 28 employees who were laid off when the employer contracted out its warehousing operations.

The union alleged the employer made representations during collective bargaining that it would not contract out the work.

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

The harm to the employees was primarily financial and could be remedied by a final order, whereas the employer would suffer significant, unrecoverable financial harm and disruption if forced to reverse its contracting out arrangements on an interim basis.

The union's delay in bringing the application also weighed against granting relief.

The applicant union sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to reinstate an employee who was allegedly discharged for union organizing activities.

The employer argued the discharge was for reasons unrelated to the union campaign.

The Board applied the test for interim relief, balancing the potential harm to the union's organizing campaign against the potential disruption to the employer's workplace.

Finding that the harm of not granting the order outweighed the harm of granting it, the Board directed the interim reinstatement of the employee pending the final disposition of the unfair labour practice complaint.

During a lawful strike by retail grocery employees, the company closed its struck stores but attempted to remove perishable goods using personnel from its head office and non-struck stores.

The union applied for a declaration that the company used prohibited replacement workers, while the company applied for restrictions on picketing to allow the removal of the goods.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the company violated section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act by using prohibited replacement workers to perform bargaining unit work.

The Board dismissed the company's application for picketing restrictions, finding insufficient evidence that the peaceful picketing caused undue disruption to the company's operations within the meaning of section 11.1.