Employment and Labour Law

The union applied for an interim order to prevent the employer from unilaterally excluding seven employees from the bargaining unit at the commencement of a lawful strike.

The employer argued the Board's jurisdiction to grant interim relief was limited to procedural matters under section 98 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board held that section 16.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act grants it a general power to make interim orders, which prevails over section 98 of the LRA due to the conflict provision in section 32 of the SPPA.

Applying the two-pronged test for interim relief, the Board found the union had established an arguable case of unfair labour practices and that the balance of labour relations harm favoured granting the order, as the employer's actions undermined the strike and union morale.

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights shortly after the union applied for first contract arbitration.

The Board previously determined it would consider the first contract application before the termination application.

During the first contract hearings, the employer and union reached a settlement, and the Board issued a consent order directing the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

Consequently, pursuant to the mandatory language of section 43(23) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board dismissed the termination application, rejecting arguments that doing so violated the employees' Charter rights.

The applicant hospital applied under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act following the amalgamation of two hospitals.

The parties agreed that a sale of a business occurred and that representation votes should be held between competing unions for merged clerical and service bargaining units.

The parties sought a determination on whether the collective agreement of the winning union would apply to all employees in the new bargaining units after the vote, and what impact the statutory freeze period would have.

The Board held that under section 69(6), the collective agreement of the successful union applies to the entire bargaining unit, and that the Board's declarations terminating the losing union's collective agreement and amending the winning union's bargaining unit description would be made retroactive to the date of the application.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

Due to an intervention based on a voluntary recognition agreement that was later found to have no legitimate basis, the representation vote was delayed by a month.

The union requested an order allowing it to mail materials to the responding party's employees using employer-produced labels to maintain the confidentiality of the employees' addresses.

The responding party opposed the request.

The Board granted the union's request, finding that the delay in the vote justified providing the union with the opportunity to communicate with the voters.

The Board directed the employer to produce the labels and the parties to jointly arrange the mailing at the applicant's expense.

The union applied for certification in the construction industry.

A representation vote was held and the ballots were segregated pending disputes over voter eligibility.

The union challenged the inclusion of Teddy Petrushevski, arguing he was not a registered apprentice or journeyman, and Silvio Grande, arguing he exercised managerial functions.

The Board held that Petrushevski was lawfully working in the trade under the three-month grace period in the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act and was therefore an eligible employee.

The Board also found that Silvio Grande, a working foreman and brother of the owner, did not exercise managerial functions within the meaning of section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Both individuals were found eligible to vote, and the Board directed the ballots to be counted.

The applicants, two construction trade unions, applied for certification to represent employees working on a steam pipeline at the Bruce Energy Centre.

The responding party, Ontario Hydro, raised a preliminary objection that the employees were already represented by the applicants under existing Electrical Power Systems Construction Association (EPSCA) collective agreements.

The central issue was whether the work was performed 'on Ontario Hydro property' within the meaning of the EPSCA agreements.

The Board found that Ontario Hydro did not have a sufficient property interest in the lands where the work was performed to bring it within the scope of the EPSCA agreements.

Consequently, the Board ruled that the employees were not represented under the EPSCA agreements on the application date, allowing the certification applications to proceed.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification for a bargaining unit of security guards employed by the responding party.

The responding party and intervenor objected to the application on the grounds that the applicant had recently withdrawn a previous application, and the responding party disputed whether the applicant had sufficient membership evidence.

The majority of the Board directed that a representation vote be held by mail and that the ballots be counted, deferring the substantive objections to a post-vote hearing.

The Board declined to order the responding party to provide employee names and addresses to the applicant at this stage.

One Board member dissented, stating he would have sealed the ballot box until the jurisdictional issues were resolved.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether Bellwoods Centre for Community Living Inc. is a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA).

Bellwoods provides support services to physically disabled adults to enable independent living.

Applying the factors from the Red Cross decision, the Board concluded that the services provided are essential to the health and safety of the clients, who are highly dependent on them.

The Board advised the Minister that Bellwoods is an 'other institution' and therefore a 'hospital' under the HLDAA.

Following the merger of two hospitals, the applicant hospital applied under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking a declaration that intermingling of employees had occurred and requesting the restructuring of multiple bargaining units into two units, along with representation votes.

The responding trade unions opposed the application, arguing that the transfer of employees did not constitute intermingling and that the hospital's actions were not bona fide.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that intermingling had occurred due to the integration of the hospitals and the regular movement of staff between sites, which caused significant operational and labour relations difficulties.

The Board exercised its discretion to combine the existing bargaining units into a paramedical unit and a service/clerical unit, and ordered representation votes to determine the bargaining agents for the newly structured units.

In an application for certification, the employer and objecting employees challenged the applicant's status as a trade union and the validity of its membership evidence.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, despite the absence of original charters from 1911.

The Board also dismissed a request to reconsider its earlier decision directing a representation vote, holding that the membership evidence was sufficient to establish an appearance of 40 percent support.

Finally, the Board permitted the union to raise a post-vote challenge to the employment status of two individuals, and directed further submissions on the remaining voter eligibility disputes.

The applicant union applied for certification and won a representation vote.

The employer argued that a second vote should be ordered under the 'build-up' principle because it was opening a second plant and significantly expanding its full-time workforce.

The Board held that the build-up principle survived the enactment of Bill 7, but found that the anticipated increase in employees did not meet the 50% threshold required to order a new vote, particularly because part-time employees were included in the all-employee bargaining unit.

The Board certified the union, with one member dissenting.

The applicants, Millwright Local 1410 and U.A. Local 221, applied for certification for construction employees of Alcan Aluminium Limited.

Alcan and intervening unions argued the bargaining units should be restricted to Alcan's Chemicals division or include 'save and except' language to protect existing bargaining rights held by the Steelworkers and Machinists at other plants.

The Board found it inappropriate to restrict the units to a specific division but agreed to include specific 'save and except' language to preserve existing bargaining rights.

The Board also dismissed Alcan's motion to dismiss the U.A.'s application based on alleged misrepresentations by the union that it would not seek certification, finding no legal basis for estoppel or fraud.

Certificates were ordered to issue.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to displace the incumbent union.

The issue was whether the application was timely.

The parties were subject to the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA) and an interest arbitration board had issued an award that remitted the issue of lay-off and recall language back to the parties for negotiation.

The Board held that the interest arbitration award was not a final decision on all matters in dispute, and therefore the 90-day extension period under s. 10(12) of the HLDAA had not yet commenced.

Consequently, the application for certification was premature and untimely, and was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging reprisals for raising health and safety concerns, which included allegations of a racially poisoned work environment and physical hazards.

The responding party brought a preliminary motion requesting the Board defer to the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Board found that the essence of the complaint was racial discrimination and harassment, which falls squarely within the specialized jurisdiction of the Commission under the Human Rights Code.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 50(3) of the OHSA to decline to inquire into the matter and dismissed the application.

The parent union applied under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act for the Board's consent to extend its trusteeship over the local union for an additional six months.

The trusteeship was initially imposed due to serious financial and operational concerns, including significant debt, financial mismanagement, and internal political turmoil.

The Board found that the administrator had made reasonable, good-faith efforts to address these issues and that a minimum six-month extension was necessary to complete the restructuring and ensure a smooth return to local autonomy.

The application for extension was granted.

The union applied for interim relief under section 98 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking an order that the responding parties produce financial and lease information necessary for collective bargaining.

The responding parties objected to producing lease agreements, citing confidentiality and competitive sensitivity.

The Board found an arguable case on the merits and that the balance of harm favoured granting the order.

The Board directed the responding parties to produce the requested information, subject to confidentiality restrictions, to facilitate bargaining for a second collective agreement.

The union brought an application alleging that the responding party was a successor employer following the purchase of a bankrupt company's rubber division.

The responding party raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the union's bargaining rights did not extend to its location in Elora, Ontario.

The Board found that the union and the predecessor employer had attempted to amend the collective agreement to expand its geographic scope in the event of a sale, but this arrangement effectively created two collective agreements or altered the term of operation without Board consent, violating the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Consequently, the geographic scope clause did not cover the Elora location, and the application was dismissed.

The Labourers' union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of tending work for carpenters erecting and dismantling scaffolding.

The employer, Doug Chalmers Construction Limited, argued it should have discretion to assign the work based on economy and efficiency.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the Canada Millwrights factors, finding that employer and area practice, along with a prior trade agreement, favoured the Labourers' claim.

The Board ordered the employer to assign at least one construction labourer to tend carpenters on all scaffolding jobs in issue, while retaining discretion to assign additional labourers as needed.

One Board member dissented, emphasizing the employer's right to assign work based on cost and efficiency.

The applicant union sought a declaration of successor rights, arguing that the opening of a Ruth's Chris steakhouse in the hotel premises formerly occupied by Trader Vic's constituted a sale of a business under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union argued that the downtown location was a key asset transferred to the new restaurant.

The Board found that the transaction was merely a lease of space and that no part of the predecessor's business, other than the location itself, was transferred.

The application was dismissed.

The employer applied under section 5(2) of the transitional provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that a combined full-time and part-time bargaining unit was no longer appropriate.

The union argued that the Board should apply its modern approach to community of interest, focusing on whether the combined unit caused serious labour relations problems.

The Board rejected this approach, finding that the transitional provisions required a traditional community of interest analysis.

Given the significant differences in terms and conditions of employment and the traditional nature of the part-time student workforce, the Board found no community of interest and declared the combined unit inappropriate.