Employment and Labour Law

The applicant union sought a declaration that the responding party was a successor employer under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

The responding party had leased the premises and equipment of a former timber mill from the predecessor employer, which had been closed for approximately two years.

The responding party argued it was a research operation, not a production operation like the predecessor.

The majority of the Board found that the responding party had acquired and revived part of the predecessor's business, as it used the same premises and machinery to produce similar wood products.

The Board declared that the union's bargaining rights continued with the responding party.

One Board member dissented, arguing there was no existing business to sell.

The applicant union alleged that the responding party employer violated the Labour Relations Act by terminating the employment of a known union supporter.

The employer claimed the employee was terminated at the end of a six-month probationary period due to poor performance.

The Board found that the employee was not subject to a six-month probationary period and that the employer had manufactured this excuse to terminate her after learning of the union's certification application.

The Board concluded that the termination was motivated by anti-union animus and ordered the employee reinstated with compensation.

The applicant trade union applied under section 7 of the Labour Relations Act to combine a bargaining unit of maintenance services and plant operations employees with a unit of cleaners.

The employer opposed the combination, arguing that the Board should consider the current government's stated intention to revoke the combination provisions and the declining state of educational sector financing.

The Board rejected these arguments, holding that it must apply the legislation currently in effect and that the combination would promote viable and stable collective bargaining.

The Board directed the combination of the two units.

The applicant filed a complaint under s. 91(7) of the Labour Relations Act alleging the responding party failed to comply with a written settlement agreement resolving an earlier unfair labour practice complaint.

The responding party argued the settlement was void due to the applicant's failure to disclose that another employee intended to file a similar complaint, and alleged issues with union membership evidence.

The Board held that the applicant had no duty to disclose the other employee's intentions and that the settlement terms were clear and binding.

The Board ordered the responding party to comply with the settlement and pay the agreed funds, but declined to award interest due to the applicant's delay in bringing the enforcement application.

The applicant sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to prevent the responding union from proceeding with an internal trial against him for allegedly failing to ensure his crew members paid back dues.

The applicant argued the trial was a reprisal for his involvement in ongoing Board proceedings challenging the union's status.

The Board granted the interim order, finding that the potential harm to the applicant and the risk of chilling witness participation outweighed the union's interest in conducting its internal affairs without interference pending the resolution of the main unfair labour practice complaint.

The applicant union sought leave to withdraw its application for certification after the Board identified a potential irregularity in the membership evidence.

The employer opposed the withdrawal, arguing that the Board should proceed with the application on its merits to investigate the alleged forgery, especially since the union filed a second, identical application on the same day it sought to withdraw the first.

The Board held that the union's decision not to rely on the questionable membership evidence inherently carried the penalty of losing that support and delaying its certification efforts.

The Board found no abuse of process and noted that any limitation on employees' ability to oppose the second application arose from the statutory framework, not the union's conduct.

Following its usual practice when a request to withdraw is made after a meeting with a Board Officer, the Board dismissed the application.

A dissenting member would have denied the request to withdraw, noting that the union was not abandoning its claim to represent the employees.

The applicant union applied for certification for a unit of ironworkers in the construction industry.

The responding party employer argued the application was untimely because the employees were already covered by a collective agreement with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM).

The Board found that the work performed on the application date was construction work within the jurisdiction of the Ironworkers, and that the IAM collective agreement did not cover this work.

As the IAM agreement was not a bar, and the applicant had the requisite membership support, the Board granted the application and issued the certificates.

The applicant union sought a declaration that Zellers was bound by the collective agreement between the union and Woolworth, arguing that a sale of a business had occurred under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

Woolworth had terminated its lease in a shopping mall, and the landlord subsequently negotiated a new lease with Zellers.

Zellers completely renovated the premises and hired its own employees, with only five former Woolworth employees being hired through a standard application process.

The Board applied an instrumental analysis and found that no operational entity or constituent components of Woolworth's business had passed to Zellers, other than the physical location.

The application was dismissed as no sale of a business took place.

A preliminary motion was brought to determine whether Local 73 had properly withdrawn from its parent International Union.

The Board applied the standard from a prior court decision, finding that the constitution and by-laws implicitly required rigorous notice and secret ballot voting procedures for a withdrawal to be valid.

Because the local union members voted by a show of hands rather than a secret ballot, the purported withdrawal was ineffective at law.

Consequently, the successorship application was dismissed, and the certification and combination applications were directed to proceed in the name of Local 73 under the International's trusteeship.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board heard related applications concerning a dispute in the drywall industry over whether recent negotiations produced binding collective agreements in the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) and residential sectors.

The employers argued that a settlement reached in June 1995, which included wage concessions in exchange for strict policing language, constituted binding agreements.

The union and objecting employees argued there was no binding settlement.

The Board found that the Carpenters' Ontario Provincial Council did not approve the ICI amendments, rendering them ineffective, and that there was no shared intention to create a stand-alone residential agreement.

The Board also found that a local union official breached the duty of fair representation by signing the settlement after assuring members he would not do so without their ratification, though no remedy beyond a declaration was ordered.

Finally, the Board upheld the parent union's imposition of a trusteeship over the local union.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent the ground staff at the responding party's golf and country club.

The responding party argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should include both the ground staff and the clubhouse staff.

The Board found that the ground staff shared a distinct community of interest, separate from the clubhouse staff, due to differences in work locations, hours, supervision, and budgets.

Applying the test from The Hospital for Sick Children, the Board concluded that the ground staff constituted a viable bargaining unit and that their certification would not cause serious labour relations problems.

The application for certification was granted for the ground staff unit.

The employer applied to combine two bargaining units.

The union raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 7(1) of the Labour Relations Act because the two units were represented by different local unions.

The Board found that neither local had proven its trade union status before the Board, nor had there been a declaration of a transfer of jurisdiction from the national union to the locals.

Therefore, the national union remained the bargaining agent for both units, giving the Board jurisdiction to consider the combination application.

The union applied for certification on the same day the employer's plant began a summer shutdown.

The employer posted the required notice to employees, but no employees were at work to see it before the terminal date expired.

The employer argued the application should be voided ab initio due to lack of notice.

The Board found that while proper notice was not given, the appropriate remedy was not to dismiss the application but to extend the terminal date to allow employees an opportunity to participate.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the respondent employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith by refusing to sign a collective agreement after the union ratified the employer's final offer.

The employer failed to file a reply, and the Board deemed the facts in the application accepted.

The Board found that the employer reneged on its own proposal regarding a specific job classification after the union had altered its position by ratifying it.

The Board declared a violation of the Labour Relations Act and ordered the employer to sign the collective agreement.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit consisting of drivers and driver helpers at the employer's Mississauga warehouse.

The employer argued that its operations fell under federal jurisdiction due to inter-provincial transportation and that the proposed unit was inappropriate because it excluded warehouse personnel.

The Board held that the employer's operations fell within provincial jurisdiction, as its trucking activities were integral to its provincial distribution business and it did not operate as a common carrier.

However, the Board found the proposed bargaining unit inappropriate due to concerns about fragmentation and the shared community of interest between drivers and warehouse employees.

The Board indicated it would order a representation vote in the broader unit if requested by the union.

The Labourers' union brought a jurisdictional dispute proceeding under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act, challenging PCL/McCarthy's assignment of construction work on the Canadian portion of the Blue Water Bridge to the Carpenters' union.

The Carpenters raised a preliminary objection that the project fell under federal jurisdiction.

The Board found it had constitutional jurisdiction, as the construction of the bridge was not integral to its future federal operation.

On the merits, the Board declined to disturb the work assignment, finding that the Carpenters had a valid collective agreement with the employer, whereas the Labourers did not, which outweighed area practice evidence favouring the Labourers.

The applicant union applied for certification.

During the hearing, it was revealed that the union's main organizer had signed membership cards as a 'witness' without actually observing the employees signing them.

The employer and objecting employees argued this irregularity, along with allegations of intimidation and coercion by the organizer, should invalidate the membership evidence.

The Board found that the organizer's misrepresentation on the cards was innocent and did not undermine the reliability of the evidence.

The Board also dismissed the allegations of intimidation, finding no objective basis for them.

The Board certified the union, with one member dissenting on the reliability of the membership evidence.

The union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote under section 9 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer objected, arguing that the union's documentary evidence consisted only of applications for membership, not actual membership, and that some employees had subsequently withdrawn their support.

The Board held that for the purposes of section 9, an application for membership is sufficient to establish membership support, consistent with long-standing Board practice and legislative intent.

The Board further held that letters withdrawing support do not constitute a revocation of membership.

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

The union filed a construction grievance alleging the employer failed to pay wage increases under the Provincial Agreement.

The employer argued the Social Contract Act applied, freezing compensation, and that the Board lacked jurisdiction due to the Act's adjudication provisions.

The Board held it had jurisdiction to interpret the application of the Act to the collective agreement.

The Board found the Social Contract Act applied to the ICI sector employees of the school board.

However, for two grievors earning less than $30,000 annually from the employer, the Act's 'fail safe' wage freeze did not apply, and they were entitled to the negotiated wage increases.

The union alleged that the employer violated the statutory freeze under section 81 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to pay a 3% wage increase to employees earning under $30,000.

The employer argued that the increase was contingent on funding from the City of Ottawa, which was not provided due to budget constraints.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the wage increase was not a guaranteed term or condition of employment, and that 'business as usual' for the employer included responding to budget constraints imposed by the City.