Employment and Labour Law

The applicant, a health care aide and former supporter of a rival union, applied for a job posting using a blank piece of paper instead of the designated form.

Her application was discarded, and the union refused to pursue her grievance or accept the employer's offer to rerun the competition.

The applicant alleged the union violated its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union acted in bad faith, driven by antipathy towards the applicant due to her past union affiliations, and upheld the complaint.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer.

Following a representation vote, the employer challenged two ballots as spoiled.

The Board ruled the ballots were not spoiled, as they clearly indicated the voters' choice without identifying them.

The Board also directed a hearing to determine the employee status of three team leaders, finding that written representations were insufficient to resolve the issue.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The responding employer disagreed with the union's estimate of the number of individuals in the bargaining unit under section 8.1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and argued the proposed unit was not appropriate.

The Board found that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in either proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board ordered a representation vote and directed that the ballot box not be sealed, leaving the issue of the appropriate bargaining unit to be determined at a subsequent hearing if necessary.

The Board determined the bargaining unit structure following the amalgamation of four psychiatric and addiction facilities into the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The Board ordered two bargaining units: one for registered and graduate nurses, and one for all other non-managerial employees.

The Board also held that a non-union option must be included on the ballot for any unit where 40% or more of the employees were Crown employees prior to the changeover date.

The geographic scope was limited to the City of Toronto and existing Mississauga employees.

The Board declined to order the disclosure of employee addresses and telephone numbers to the unions due to safety concerns.

The union applied for certification to represent homecare workers (homemakers) at the Huntsville District Memorial Hospital.

The hospital argued that the homemakers were independent contractors and therefore not employees under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board applied the factors for assessing dependent contractor status, including the use of substitutes, ownership of tools, entrepreneurial activity, and integration into the employer's operations.

The Board concluded that the homemakers were in a contractual relationship of dependency with the hospital, making them dependent contractors and thus employees for the purposes of the Act.

A certificate was issued to the union.

The applicant Millwrights filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of work involving the removal and installation of kiln chains at a paper mill.

The employer had assigned the work to a 50-50 composite crew of ironworkers and millwrights.

The Ironworkers claimed exclusive jurisdiction over the work.

The Board found that the area practice was mixed and that the employer's assignment to a composite crew was proper, directing the employer to continue assigning the work on that basis in the relevant geographic areas.

The applicants filed for a review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act 50 days after the order, missing the 45-day deadline.

They secured irrevocable letters of credit satisfactory to the Director on the 50th day.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 68(4) to extend the time for filing the applications by 5 days, noting the short delay, the securing of the letters of credit, and a legitimate dispute regarding the quantum of the Order to Pay.

The two appeals were ordered to be heard together.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit structure for the Upper Canada District School Board following restructuring under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The Board ruled that there should be two bargaining units: one for professional student services personnel (PSSP) and one 'all employee' bargaining unit, rejecting a proposal for four separate units.

The parties subsequently filed Minutes of Settlement agreeing to the bargaining unit descriptions and the process for a representation vote.

The applicant applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party trade union no longer represented the employees in the bargaining unit.

The applicant estimated the bargaining unit at 400 employees, while the union and employer indicated there were over 900 employees.

After the Board directed submissions on the disparity, the applicant conceded it had no basis to challenge the employer's list.

As less than forty per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the union, the Board dismissed the application.

The applicant, an employee in the Southwestern Ontario bargaining unit, filed an application alleging the union violated the Labour Relations Act by failing to provide adequate notice of a ratification vote.

The union had provided individual written notice to employees with known addresses and published advertisements in local newspapers.

The applicant, who received individual notice and voted, argued that newspaper advertisements were inadequate because some employees allegedly did not see them.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union took reasonable steps to inform employees of the vote in a timely manner, especially given the lack of a common workplace.

The Board also noted the applicant's delay in filing and the substantial prejudice that would result from setting aside the vote.

The Board considered applications under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 regarding the restructuring of bargaining units at Mississauga-Queensway Hospital.

The Board dismissed an objection that the application for the paramedical bargaining unit was premature, finding that the restructuring events provided sufficient reason to proceed despite the potential disruption to existing bargaining rights.

Following the oral ruling, the parties resolved all remaining matters and filed Minutes of Settlement for both the paramedical and service bargaining units.

The Board directed that representation votes be held in accordance with the settlements.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board previously determined that separate full-time and part-time bargaining units were appropriate for the operations of the Corporation of Loyalist Township.

Following a representation vote for the full-time unit, the Board appointed the Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 2150 as the bargaining agent and terminated the bargaining rights of the Service Employees International Union, Local 663 for those employees.

Regarding the part-time unit, the employer argued no vote was necessary as there were no unionized part-time employees on the change-over date.

The Board disagreed, holding that section 23(2) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 mandates a representation vote to determine bargaining agents and is the only mechanism to terminate existing bargaining rights.

The Board ordered a vote for the part-time unit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined a jurisdictional dispute between the Carpenters and Labourers unions regarding the assignment of tending work associated with the erection and dismantling of scaffolding by Doug Chalmers Construction Limited.

The Board held that general tending work is prima facie within the jurisdiction of construction labourers, while other tending work falls to carpenters.

The Board ordered that general tending work must be assigned to labourers only if there is sufficient work to occupy a labourer for a minimum of four hours during a shift; otherwise, the employer may assign it at its discretion.

The applicant school board applied under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 to determine the number and descriptions of bargaining units following the amalgamation of three predecessor boards.

The Board determined that bus drivers should be included in the larger custodial and maintenance bargaining unit to avoid fragmentation.

The Board also determined that educational assistants should form a separate bargaining unit, given their distinct skill set and the potential for labour relations problems if included in the office and clerical unit.

Representation votes were ordered for three of the four established bargaining units.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), alleging he was terminated in reprisal for seeking short-term disability benefits and requiring accommodation after a car accident.

The employer requested the application be dismissed without a hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding it did not disclose a prima facie case of a reprisal under the OHSA, as the applicant was not seeking to enforce or comply with the Act.

Alternatively, the Board exercised its discretion to decline to inquire, noting the core of the dispute concerned human rights and accommodation, which fall under the Human Rights Code rather than the OHSA.

In the context of union certification applications, the intervenor and responding party sought to restrict the disclosure and use of a document they claimed was a voluntary recognition agreement.

The document had been produced to the applicant subject to a strict confidentiality undertaking.

The Board held that while an implied undertaking restricts the use of documents produced during litigation, this restriction ceases to apply once a document is admitted into evidence at a public hearing.

The Board found no compelling reason under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act or the Labour Relations Act to order the hearing closed or to restrict the use of the document outside the proceedings, emphasizing the importance of transparent decision-making.

In the context of a school board amalgamation, the applicant union applied for a single 'all employee' non-teaching bargaining unit.

The responding employer and two other unions proposed two bargaining units: one for maintenance/service and one for office/clerical/teaching assistants.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that two bargaining units were appropriate, noting the history of a successful two-unit structure at one of the predecessor boards and the substantial size of each proposed unit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a bottom-line decision regarding the restructuring of bargaining units at the newly amalgamated City of Kingston under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The Board directed the preservation of the ONA nurses' unit and a separate utilities unit represented by the IBEW.

Transit workers represented by the CAW were folded into a broader all-employee unit proposed by CUPE.

The Board also defined the firefighters' unit and directed the parties to finalize the remaining bargaining unit descriptions with the assistance of a Board Officer.

Following representation votes, CUPE Local 11 filed objections regarding vote locations, dates, and alleged improper telephone campaigning by CUPE Local One.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to enquire into the objections under s. 23(19) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997, finding that the alleged irregularities would not have affected the outcome of the votes and that the allegations of improper conduct were both untimely and unfounded.

The Board declared CUPE Local One as the bargaining agent for the inside and outside employees of the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission.

The applicants, two construction trade unions, applied for certification to represent their respective trades in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector and all other sectors of the construction industry in Board Area 3.

The parties disagreed on the appropriate bargaining unit descriptions, particularly regarding the exclusion of pre-existing bargaining rights held by the Power Workers' Union (PWU) and the applicants' own rights in the electrical power systems sector.

The Board determined that the electrical power systems sector bargaining rights should be excluded by reference to the specific collective agreements rather than the sector itself.

The Board found the Labourers' proposed bargaining unit appropriate with slight amendments, but rejected the U.A.'s proposed unit because it inappropriately sought to incorporate a jurisdictional accord that the employer had not agreed to.