Employment and Labour Law

The parent international union imposed a trusteeship on Local 1072, a 'shop local' representing manufacturing employees.

The applicants challenged the trusteeship under section 149 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (Bill 80), which requires just cause for such actions.

The parent union argued that section 149 only applies to 'construction trade unions' as defined in section 126, and that Local 1072 did not meet this definition.

The Board agreed, finding that Local 1072's practices and collective agreements resembled those of an industrial union rather than a construction union.

Consequently, Local 1072 was not a construction union, and the Bill 80 protections did not apply.

The Pembroke Civic Hospital applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, following a directive to close and transfer its operations to the Pembroke General Hospital.

The parties disputed the appropriate bargaining unit structure and the identity of the resulting bargaining agents for the intermingled employees.

The Board determined that the broader-based bargaining unit structure already in place at the surviving hospital (the General) was appropriate, noting its 25-year history of success and the general labour relations trend toward broader units.

The Board ordered a representation vote to allow employees to choose their bargaining agent from among all the affected trade unions.

The union filed construction industry grievances against two employers for failing to pay interest charges on late remittances to trust funds, as required by the collective agreement.

The employers raised preliminary objections, primarily arguing that the grievances were untimely.

The Board found that the trust fund administrator's 'dunning letters' did not constitute formal grievances and that the actual grievances were filed well beyond the time limits specified in the collective agreement.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time limits, finding no reasonable grounds to do so, and dismissed the grievances in their entirety.

The applicant union filed a jurisdictional dispute under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, following a 7-month delay.

The applicant argued the delay was due to a lack of counsel resources and a desire to compile its best case.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the reasons provided did not justify the lengthy delay and that countenancing such a delay would undermine the Board's system for resolving jurisdictional disputes expeditiously.

Four related jurisdictional disputes were filed regarding the assignment of work involving the uncrating, unpacking, and disposal of packaging material for a direct strip mill.

The employer had assigned the work to various trades, and the Labourers grieved the assignment.

The Board held that the uncrating of equipment and the dismantling or disposal of packaging material during the uncrating process was properly assigned to the trades.

However, once the equipment was entirely uncrated, the disposal and clean-up of the remaining packaging material was the work of the Labourers.

Following the merger of three hospitals, the parties agreed that a sale of a business and intermingling of employees had occurred under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

The parties disputed whether the amalgamated hospital should maintain separate bargaining units for maintenance employees and operating engineers, as existed at some predecessor sites, or integrate them into a broader service unit.

The Board determined that a comprehensive service unit, including maintenance employees and operating engineers, was the appropriate bargaining unit structure for the merged hospital, emphasizing the policy preference for broader-based bargaining units to avoid fragmentation.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent stagehands employed by the responding party at a seasonal outdoor concert venue.

The application was filed in February, during the venue's off-season, when no employees were actually performing bargaining unit work.

The responding parties brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application on the basis that there were no employees in the bargaining unit on the application date.

The Board applied the bright line test from the theatrical and construction industries, holding that because employment in this industry is seasonal and transitory, individuals must be actually at work on the application date to be considered employees in the bargaining unit.

Since no employees were working on the application date, the application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant union sought certification for employees working at Esso.

The employees were supplied by Best Personnel Services, a temporary personnel agency.

The core issue was whether Esso or Best was the true employer.

Applying the York Condominium factors, the Board found that Esso exercised fundamental control over the employment relationship, including direction, supervision, discipline, and determining when the employment relationship began and ended.

Consequently, the Board determined that Esso was the true employer for the purposes of the certification application.

The applicant, a former hospital employee and newly elected union vice-president, alleged the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to judicially review an arbitration award that confirmed his discharge.

The applicant had previously convinced the union executive to boycott the arbitration hearing, believing he would not get a fair hearing, and signed a release acknowledging the risks.

The Board found no explicit promise by the union to pursue judicial review; rather, the threat of review was a ruse agreed upon by the executive, including the applicant.

The decision not to pursue judicial review was found to be reasonable and not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The application was dismissed.

The employer applied under section 5 of the Labour Relations and Employment Law Amendment Act, 1995 for a declaration that the existing bargaining unit, which combined full-time and part-time employees, was not appropriate for collective bargaining.

The union opposed the application, arguing that a community of interest existed between the two groups.

The Board heard expert evidence that the nature of part-time work has evolved, with part-time employees now sharing similar interests to full-time employees.

Finding that the full-time and part-time employees performed the same work under virtually identical terms and conditions, the Board concluded that a substantial community of interest existed.

The employer's application to split the bargaining unit was dismissed.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of employees of KPM Industries Ltd. in Onaping Falls.

The employer argued the bargaining unit should be limited to two specific divisions currently operating in the municipality, to exclude potential future employees of a third division that performs construction work.

The Board held that the appropriate employer name is the sole legal entity, KPM Industries Ltd., and declined to restrict the bargaining unit to specific divisions, finding no cogent reason to depart from its usual practice of certifying municipal-wide units.

The applicant union sought certification for an all-employee bargaining unit.

A representation vote was held, and the results hinged on the ballots of a group of workers paid by a temporary employment agency but working at the responding party's premises.

Following the vote, both parties reversed their positions on whether these workers were employees of the responding party.

The Board applied the K Mart criteria and determined that the responding party was the true employer, as it exercised overriding day-to-day control.

The Board refused to allow the responding party to propose a new, separate bargaining unit for the agency workers after the vote, finding the single all-employee unit appropriate.

A certificate was issued.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging that her employer engaged in reprisals against her for having filed a human rights complaint regarding sexual harassment.

The employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss the complaint due to undue delay, lack of jurisdiction, and because the matters were previously settled under the Human Rights Code.

The Board declined to inquire into allegations prior to 1996 due to extreme delay and lack of reasonable explanation.

The Board also held that sexual harassment allegations should be pursued under the Human Rights Code, not the OHSA.

The Board found no evidence that the applicant sought to enforce the OHSA prior to April 1996, and dismissed the reprisal allegations for that period.

The matter was re-listed to deal solely with the remaining timely health and safety issues raised in an April 1996 letter.

The applicant filed an application for termination of the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The Board noted that a first contract application brought by the union was already pending.

Pursuant to section 43(23) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board directed that the termination application be considered together with the first contract application by the panel scheduled to hear the latter.

The Board considered whether to give effect to a representation vote in a certification application by CAW-Canada Local 195, given a prior one-year bar imposed on the national union, CAW-Canada.

The employer argued that section 10(3) of the Labour Relations Act barred the local union's application, or alternatively, that the Board should exercise its discretion under section 111(2)(k) to refuse to entertain it.

The Board held that section 10(3) applies only to the same trade union applicant, and Local 195 is a distinct legal entity from the national union.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to refuse the application, noting that a competing application by the UAW would have resulted in a vote anyway.

The Board certified Local 195 based on the vote results.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

The employer argued that a representation vote should not be held immediately due to an anticipated build-up of its workforce.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that the representation vote proceed, with the build-up issue to be determined after the vote.

The Board also directed that ballots be segregated by location due to a dispute over the appropriate bargaining unit.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding her authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The union had requested conciliation after giving notice to bargain to the employer, which objected on the basis that it had contracted out all cleaning work to a successor employer, leaving the bargaining unit empty.

The Board advised that the deemed sale of the business did not terminate the union's bargaining rights or its collective agreement with the predecessor employer.

Therefore, the union was entitled to give notice to bargain, and the Minister has the authority to appoint a conciliation officer, despite the practical difficulties of bargaining for an empty unit.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging that the employer distributed a video and letter to employees shortly before a representation vote that materially misrepresented the statutory freeze provisions under section 86 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union also alleged that the employer's statements regarding plant competitiveness were threatening.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that both parties had provided incomplete but not materially false descriptions of the statutory freeze, and that the employer's statements about competitiveness fell within the permissible limits of employer speech.

As the union lost the representation vote, the certification application was dismissed.

The employer, Ecodyne Limited, filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of tending and clean-up work on a cooling tower erection project in Sault Ste.

Marie.

The employer had assigned the work to members of the Carpenters' union, but the Labourers' union claimed the work.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the Canada Millwrights factors, finding that while economy and efficiency favoured the employer's preference for the Carpenters, the core work jurisdiction in the collective agreement and the local area practice favoured the Labourers.

The Board declared that the work should have been assigned to the Labourers.

One Board Member dissented, arguing that economy and efficiency should prevail.

The applicant ironworkers brought a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of work involving the off loading, rigging, moving, handling, fabrication, cutting, welding, fitting, bolting, and installation of removable steel molds and accompanying steel supports for an iron runner box at Algoma Steel.

The employer had assigned the work to the ironworkers, but the carpenters claimed jurisdiction.

The Board found that the core skills required for the work, including welding, cutting, and rigging structural steel, favoured the ironworkers.

The Board upheld the employer's assignment of the work to the ironworkers.