Employment and Labour Law

The applicant union filed a jurisdictional dispute concerning the operation of cranes and forklifts at a construction site.

The responding parties objected to the Board entertaining the application, arguing that the dispute had already been decided by an arbitrator under the Canadian Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the Construction Industry.

The Board held that the applicant local union was not stipulated to the Plan, either in its own right or through its parent international union, and was not a privy of the international union.

Consequently, the applicant was not bound by the Plan's arbitration decision.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to dismiss the application and directed that the matter be scheduled for consultation.

The applicant trade union sought reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed its application for certification and imposed a one-year bar.

The applicant argued that because the ballots from the representation vote were segregated and not counted, the application was not dismissed pursuant to section 10 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and thus the mandatory bar did not apply.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the application was indeed dismissed under section 10 because the prerequisite conditions for certification were not met.

Alternatively, the Board held it would exercise its discretion under section 111(2)(k) to impose the bar, noting it would be absurd if an applicant could avoid a bar by having an application dismissed rather than withdrawn after a vote.

The applicants, a group of employees, alleged that the union violated its duty of fair representation and the statutory requirements for ratification votes by failing to explicitly inform them that their employment with the employer was terminated following the sale of their plant.

The union brought a motion to dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board found that the union had accurately described the settlement terms at the ratification meeting and could not be faulted for the applicants' erroneous assumptions.

The Board exercised its discretion to dismiss the application without a hearing, concluding there were no material facts to support the allegations of bad faith, dishonesty, or misrepresentation.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to take his discharge grievance to arbitration, despite a membership vote in favour of doing so.

The Board found that the applicant failed to plead a prima facie case, as a union is not required to take a grievance to arbitration merely because of a membership vote, provided it does not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.

The Board ordered the self-represented applicant to file a fully particularized statement of fact within 14 days, failing which the complaint would be dismissed.

The applicant, a newly formed independent union, applied for certification to displace the intervenor union.

The Board held a hearing to determine whether the applicant met the statutory definition of a 'trade union' under section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Despite irregularities in following its own constitution during its organizational meeting, the Board found that the essential features of forming a trade union—adopting a constitution, admitting members, and having representative officers—were present.

The Board concluded that the applicant is a viable organization of employees and therefore a trade union within the meaning of the Act.

The Power Workers' Union (PWU) brought applications for certification to displace the incumbent bargaining agents for construction employees at Ontario Hydro.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board first determined that the PWU must establish it is a 'trade union' within the meaning of section 126 of the Labour Relations Act (a construction trade union) to bring such applications.

After a lengthy hearing, the Board concluded that the PWU is not a construction trade union because it does not have a history of representing construction employees separate and apart from other employees, nor does it possess the established characteristics of a construction trade union.

Consequently, the PWU's applications for certification were dismissed.

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the employer violated section 72(a) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by failing to offer employment to six union members at a new facility following a plant closure.

The six complainants were all past or present members of the union executive.

The employer claimed the decisions were based on performance evaluations and attitude.

The Board found that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving that the decisions were completely free of anti-union animus, noting inconsistencies in the employer's explanations and evidence of anti-union sentiment.

The applications were allowed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board heard a procedural motion to determine which party should call its evidence first in an application involving a conflict of interest objection under section 14(4).

The majority of the Board directed the employer to call its evidence first, reasoning that the employer possessed the specific knowledge regarding the alleged conflict of interest and that requiring the union to prove a negative across hundreds of sites would unnecessarily prolong the proceedings.

The union applied for certification and won a representation vote.

The employer challenged the vote on three grounds: that the 40% threshold for ordering the vote should have been based on the actual number of employees rather than the union's estimate; that the union committed fraud by intentionally understating the number of employees in its application; and that providing ballots only in English and French violated the section 15 Charter rights of an employee who misunderstood the ballot due to language difficulties.

The Board dismissed the 40% threshold and Charter arguments, finding that the statute permits reliance on the union's estimate and that language difficulties do not constitute discrimination under section 15.

However, the Board found an arguable case for fraud and scheduled a hearing on that issue.

The applicant union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A vote was held and the ballots were segregated.

A preliminary issue arose regarding whether individuals holding a 'Pending Provisional C of Q' from the Ministry of Education and Training were entitled to be on the voting list.

The Board held that the certificate is proof that the employee is qualified to work at the electrical trade during the allowed time frame.

Therefore, individuals holding such certificates who were at work on the application date doing bargaining unit work are entitled to be on the voting list.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees at a retail store.

During the organizing drive, the employer engaged in a campaign that included daily meetings and managers repeatedly questioning employees about the union.

Crucially, management refused to answer employee questions about whether the store would close if the union was successful, which the Board found intentionally fueled employee fears for their job security.

The Board concluded that this conduct violated section 70 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that the resulting representation vote did not reflect the true wishes of the employees.

The Board certified the union pursuant to section 11 of the Act.

In an application for certification, the respondent university requested that faculty members on sabbatical and unpaid leave be permitted to vote by mail-in ballot.

The applicant faculty association opposed the request.

A majority of the Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the request, citing the administrative burden and the statutory mandate for quick representation votes under Bill 7.

The Board held that mail-in ballots are generally only ordered in limited circumstances, such as when employees are dispersed far from the employer's premises or upon agreement of the parties.

Board Member Laing dissented, arguing that denying affected employees the opportunity to vote thwarts their democratic rights.

The applicant union applied for certification and proposed a specific bargaining unit.

The responding hospital initially proposed a different unit but later agreed in writing to the applicant's proposed unit.

A representation vote was held based on this agreement.

On the eve of the vote, the hospital attempted to argue it had only agreed to a voting constituency, not the bargaining unit itself, and claimed the unit would cause undue fragmentation.

The Board held that the statutory scheme does not permit a 'qualified' agreement on a bargaining unit description.

The hospital was bound by its agreement, and the Board found the agreed-upon unit to be appropriate.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the responding party's bargaining rights.

The responding party raised preliminary objections regarding the timeliness of the application and the failure to properly deliver it prior to filing.

The Board found that under the new Interim Certification and Termination Rules, applications are deemed filed on the date they are received by the Board, not the date they are sent by registered mail.

Because the application was received after the collective agreement had expired, it was untimely.

The application was dismissed, with one Board Member dissenting.

The applicant unions brought applications under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act concerning the sale of an answering service business from Rogers Cantel Paging Inc. to AAS Telecommunications Services Limited.

Rogers raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the sale was from a federal undertaking.

The Board found that Rogers operated the answering and paging services as a fully integrated business, which constituted a federally regulated undertaking.

The Board concluded it has no jurisdiction under section 69 to consider a sale of part of a federally regulated operation to a provincially regulated company, and dismissed the applications.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint seeking to enforce a first collective agreement imposed by a board of arbitration, which included a disputed union shop clause.

The responding employer refused to implement the agreement, arguing the arbitration board exceeded its jurisdiction, and filed an application for judicial review.

The Board first ruled that bargaining unit employees who opposed the union shop clause were not entitled to notice or standing in the complaint, as their employment status was not directly affected at this stage.

Ultimately, the Board declined to inquire into the union's complaint, finding that the fundamental issue of the collective agreement's validity was best determined by the Court in the pending judicial review application.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board determined it could rely on membership evidence in the form of combination cards signed between six months and one year prior to the application date.

Finding that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members, the Board directed a representation vote.

One Board Member dissented.

The union applied for certification and a representation vote was held.

The employer requested a new vote, arguing that two employees did not receive notice of the actual voting hours and were deprived of the opportunity to vote because they relied on the hours proposed in the parties' agreement.

The Board dismissed the request and directed that a certificate issue, finding that sufficient notice was provided through the Board's postings and that employees are responsible for keeping themselves informed of the final vote arrangements.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by discontinuing the practice of providing free movie passes to newly unionized front-of-house employees immediately after their first collective agreement was signed.

The employer argued it was merely enforcing an 'entire agreement' clause.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the employer was entitled to rely on the clause, its differential treatment of the front-of-house staff compared to unionized projectionists (who continued to receive passes) demonstrated an anti-union animus.

The Board declared a violation of section 72 and ordered the employer to cease and desist the discriminatory practice.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to determine whether the employer, Meadowcroft Holdings Inc., is a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA).

The employer operates a retirement living centre providing accommodation, meals, and varying degrees of medical and personal care to elderly residents.

The Board applied an institutional approach rather than a purely labour relations approach, focusing on the nature of the care provided rather than the potential impact of a strike.

The Board concluded that the employer's focus on the accommodation, observation, assessment, and supervision of aged residents qualifies it as a home for the aged, and therefore it is a 'hospital' under the HLDAA.