Employment and Labour Law

The union applied for certification and the Board ordered a representation vote based on an appearance of 40% support, using the union's estimate of the bargaining unit size.

The employer argued that the Board should have considered the employer's calculation of the number of employees, which would have shown less than 40% support, and thus no vote should have been ordered.

The Board rejected this argument, confirming its practice of relying only on the union's estimate and membership evidence to determine the appearance of support under section 8(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

As the union won the representation vote, the Board issued a certificate pending final resolution of the bargaining unit description.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith under section 17 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer had bargained to impasse a proposal to amend the union's 'all employee' bargaining unit description to exclude all registrants of the College of Nurses, effectively removing future registered practical nurses from the unit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that a party cannot press to impasse a demand that alters the scope of established bargaining rights or work jurisdiction when a strike or lockout is imminent.

The Board declared the employer in breach of section 17 and directed it to withdraw the proposal and resume bargaining.

The applicant union filed displacement applications for certification and section 96 unfair labour practice complaints against the employer and the incumbent union.

At the outset of the hearing, the incumbent union and the employer brought motions to dismiss the applications.

The Board granted the motions, finding that the allegations of improper conduct during the representation vote campaign, even if true, would not support a finding of a breach of the Act or undermine the vote results.

The Board also noted the applicant failed to raise its concerns prior to the counting of the ballots.

The applications and complaints were dismissed.

The union filed an unfair labour practice application alleging the employer violated section 70 of the Labour Relations Act after a voice mail message left for a union official by a grievor was forwarded to the employer's human resources administrator.

The employer argued the application failed to make out a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the application, finding the pleadings did not clearly point to any prohibited conduct by the employer and noting the circumstances were already part of the record in an ongoing arbitration proceeding.

The applicants filed a complaint alleging that the employer imposed two-week suspensions as a reprisal for their work refusal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The workers had refused to work after discovering the production line was running faster than the specified cycle time.

The Board found that the work refusal was not justified under the Act, as the workers did not have a reasonable belief that the increased line speed endangered them.

However, exercising its discretion under section 50(7) of the Act, the Board found the two-week suspensions were not just and reasonable.

The Board substituted lesser penalties of a five-day suspension for one worker and one-day suspensions for the other two.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The employer and the incumbent union argued the application was untimely under section 7(6) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, because the collective agreement had automatically renewed.

The employer also argued its labour relations were governed by the Canada Labour Code, not provincial legislation.

The Board deferred holding a representation vote and directed the parties to provide written submissions on the timeliness and constitutional jurisdiction issues.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that a union steward harassed him in violation of sections 87(2)(a) and (b) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint without a hearing on the merits.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 96 of the Act to dismiss the complaint, finding that even if the facts alleged were true, the conduct did not clearly fall within section 87(2), the conduct had ceased long ago, and the requested remedies were unlikely to be granted.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Board decision that declared a sale of business had occurred.

The applicant argued that the Board erred by failing to set out the parties' arguments and the case law in its decision.

The Board dismissed the application for reconsideration, finding that it had provided a seven-page decision setting out the relevant facts and applying the law, which more than met its obligations under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to provide adequate reasons.

The Board noted that in cases where the law is settled and outcomes apparent, it will err on the side of brevity to fulfill its goal of timely decision-making.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The most recent collective agreement between the responding party employer and the intervenor union had expired, and a conciliation officer had been appointed.

Under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act and the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the open period for a certification application closes when a conciliation officer is appointed or the agreement expires, whichever is later.

As no subsequent agreement had been entered into since the conciliation officer's appointment, the Board found the application untimely and dismissed it.

The applicant union filed a construction grievance seeking damages for the respondent employer's failure to assign plaster removal work to its members, following a successful jurisdictional dispute.

The employer argued that the collective agreement precluded damages and that the assignment was not unreasonable.

The Board found that while the collective agreement did not expressly preclude damages in this specific scenario, damages for an incorrect work assignment should only be awarded if the employer acted unreasonably.

Applying the Robertson Yates test, the Board concluded that the employer's assignment of the work to the painters was not unreasonable given the circumstances, including the urgency of the project and the ancillary nature of the work.

The application for damages was dismissed.

Two trade unions applied for certification in the construction industry, naming Alcan Aluminium Limited as the responding employer.

Several divisions of Alcan intervened, arguing that the specific division, Chemicals, was the true employer and that Alcan Aluminium Limited should not be named.

The Board examined the corporate structure and control, finding that Alcan Aluminium Limited retained ultimate financial and labour relations control, particularly concerning the construction project in question.

The Board concluded that Alcan Aluminium Limited, not its unincorporated division, was the proper responding employer for labour relations purposes.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration alleging the responding party Bank violated the collective agreement by subcontracting carpentry work to a non-union contractor on a Sheppard Avenue project.

The Bank argued it was estopped from applying the agreement based on a prior Board decision (the Davie decision), which held that the Bank was not required to apply the agreement to contracts entered into before May 3, 1995.

The Board found that while the bidding process and selection occurred before May 3, 1995, the formal commercial contract was not executed until May 17, 1995.

Therefore, the estoppel did not apply, and the Bank was bound by the collective agreement for this project.

The grievance was allowed, with one member dissenting.

The applicants sought a declaration under section 61 of the Labour Relations Act that the Canadian Union of Shinglers & Allied Workers (CUSAW) no longer represented employees in certain bargaining units.

During the hearing, after the CUSAW closed its case, the applicants brought a nonsuit motion arguing that the CUSAW failed to establish it was a trade union.

The Board allowed the nonsuit motion without putting the applicants to their election, finding that the CUSAW was an organization formed and operated by employers (crew leaders) rather than an organization of employees.

Consequently, the Board declared that the CUSAW was not a trade union and held no valid collective agreements.

The union applied for certification and complained of unfair labour practices during its organizing campaign.

The employer suspended the union's sole inside organizer for three weeks and reassigned her to a unique shift, alleging she harassed employees.

The Board found the employer's actions were tainted by anti-union animus, violating sections 65, 67, and 71 of the Labour Relations Act.

Concluding that the true wishes of the employees were unlikely to be ascertained due to the employer's conduct, the Board granted certification under section 9.2.

The employer's request for reconsideration based on the new Labour Relations Act, 1995 was dismissed.

The applicant trade union referred a grievance to the Board alleging the employer failed to pay proper wage rates under the provincial ICI agreement for work performed at a Dofasco project.

The employer asserted the work was maintenance covered by a project agreement.

The General Presidents' Maintenance Committee for Canada (G.P.C.) and Dofasco sought standing to intervene.

The Board held that neither had standing as of right, as they were not bound by the ICI agreement.

However, the Board exercised its discretion to grant standing to the G.P.C. given its role in administering maintenance agreements and the potential impact on the collective bargaining system.

Dofasco was denied standing.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by asking employees to sign declarations opposing the union.

The employer, the sole owner of the company, had individualized declarations prepared and asked employees to sign them two days before a representation vote.

The Board found this conduct violated section 76 of the Act and likely discouraged employees from voting, as only one employee cast a ballot.

However, the Board declined to grant automatic certification under section 11(1), finding the employer's conduct did not threaten job security or undermine confidence in the rule of law such that a second vote would not reflect true wishes.

The Board ordered a new representation vote and directed the employer to post notices and allow the union to address employees.

The employer applied under sections 1(4) and 64 of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration of related employer status and a finding of a sale of business, which were largely agreed upon by the responding trade unions.

The employer sought to consolidate multiple geographic-specific bargaining units into a single all-employee unit, arguing that an intermingling of employees had occurred following the integration of the acquired businesses.

The Board found that while there was some operational integration and minor personnel movement, it did not constitute the thorough intermingling of employees contemplated by section 64(6) that would necessitate dismantling the existing bargaining structures.

The Board dismissed the employer's request to restructure the bargaining units, concluding that the existing geographic-specific units remained viable and the employer remained bound by the existing collective agreements.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit comprised exclusively of the food and beverage staff at a public golf and country club.

The employer argued that the appropriate unit should be an 'all employee' unit, including pro shop and grounds maintenance staff, due to the functional integration of the club's operations.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the golf club operated as a highly integrated enterprise, with significant coordination and shared duties among the various departments.

The Board concluded that carving out a departmental bargaining unit for the food and beverage staff would cause undue fragmentation and serious labour relations problems.

Consequently, the proposed bargaining unit was deemed inappropriate, and the union withdrew its application with leave of the Board.

The applicant trade union applied under section 114(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the 'Weekend Editor' is an employee within the meaning of the Act.

The responding party employer argued the position was managerial and that the Board should decline to hear the application due to delay and because the underlying issue would be resolved at arbitration.

The Board declined to dismiss the application, finding no acquiescence by the union and noting that a determination of employee status serves a useful labour relations purpose.

The Board authorized a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the duties and responsibilities of the Weekend Editor.

The union applied for certification.

Two employees alleged they were intimidated and coerced by union organizers into signing membership cards, and requested that the Board dismiss the application.

The Board held a hearing and found that the statements made by the organizers did not amount to intimidation or coercion, but rather constituted typical social pressure and salesmanship during an organizing drive.

The Board concluded that the employees had simply changed their minds about supporting the union after signing the cards.

As the union filed membership evidence on behalf of over 55% of the employees, the Board dismissed the allegations and certified the union.