Employment and Labour Law

The applicants, a superintendent couple, sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision not to issue an order against their former employer, a condominium corporation.

The applicants alleged they were terminated because the wife took maternity leave, contrary to the Employment Standards Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer successfully rebutted the presumption of reprisal, demonstrating that the terminations were motivated by a change in the board of directors, a new property management company, and a legitimate reorganization of building services.

The application was dismissed.

The employer and the union filed a joint application under section 58(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for the early termination of their collective agreement.

Three other labour organizations sought intervenor status to object to the early termination, arguing that the replacement collective agreement unlawfully expanded the union's bargaining rights to a new location, thereby depriving them of organizing opportunities.

The Board denied intervenor status, finding that the objections related to the terms of the new agreement rather than the preservation of the open period for representational challenges, which is the purpose of section 58(3).

The Board granted consent to the early termination of the collective agreement.

The applicant, a home builder, alleged that the respondent union called or authorized an unlawful strike by employees of its subcontractors at various construction sites.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that union representatives had instructed employees of one subcontractor, A-1, not to work, constituting an unlawful strike.

However, the Board found insufficient evidence to conclude that the union called or authorized strikes by employees of other subcontractors, as there was no direct evidence of communication between the union and those employees.

A cease and desist order was issued regarding the A-1 employees.

The applicant union sought its reasonably incurred costs of $2,014 following a default judgment against the responding party for violating the collective agreement by failing to use the union's hiring hall.

The union relied on Article 9.18 of the collective agreement, which provides for costs in grievances alleging a failure to pay wages or make trust fund payments.

The Board dismissed the costs claim, finding that Article 9.18 was designed for the specific purpose of addressing unpaid wages and trust fund contributions, not hiring hall violations.

The applicant union filed an application for a related employer and sale of business declaration, and referred a grievance to arbitration.

The responding employers failed to file any response.

The Board noted its authority under the Rules of Procedure to deem the facts accepted and proceed without a hearing.

However, because the applicant had not verified that the required notices to affected employees had been posted by the responding parties, the Board adjourned the matter.

The applicant was directed to provide information regarding the employees or verify the posting within 10 days, failing which the application would be dismissed.

During a jurisdictional dispute consultation, the Vice-Chair sought submissions on whether a Board Member should continue on the panel given his past employment as a senior official in Ontario Hydro's labour relations area.

One of the responding unions objected, arguing a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Board dismissed the objection, finding that the Board Member had no actual involvement in the specific 1979 dispute being relied upon, and his general background and experience in construction labour relations at Ontario Hydro did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant union alleged that the responding union and its business manager engaged in and threatened an unlawful strike to force the general contractor to change a work assignment for laying pipe on a construction project.

The business manager had physically obstructed the applicant's members from working by standing in the trench.

The Board found that the physical obstruction did not constitute a strike by the employees, nor did the business manager's actions or statements amount to a threat of an unlawful strike.

The general contractor changed the work assignment based on a prior understanding, not due to any threat.

The application concerning the unlawful strike was dismissed.

The applicants challenged a proposed project agreement under section 163.1(9) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding parties argued the challenge was untimely because it was filed more than 10 calendar days after the Board received notice of the agreement's approval.

The applicants contended that 'days' meant working days, relying on advice from the Board's Deputy Registrar.

The Board held that 'days' in section 163.1(9) means calendar days, consistent with statutory interpretation principles and the Act's scheme.

The Board further held it lacked jurisdiction under section 123 to relieve against the statutory time limit, and the doctrine of reasonable expectation did not apply.

The application was dismissed as untimely, and the project agreement came into force.

The union applied for certification.

Two preliminary issues arose regarding segregated ballots.

The Board held that the parties could not resile from their agreement to exclude one employee from the voters' list, so her ballot was not counted.

For another employee, the Board found the union could change its position within the objection period, leaving her status in dispute.

After hearing evidence, the Board determined the employee did not exercise managerial functions or act in a confidential capacity regarding labour relations under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, and ordered her ballot counted.

The employer appealed an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer for unpaid overtime.

The employer argued that the employee had agreed to a higher flat hourly rate of $10.00 instead of $6.85 plus overtime, and that this arrangement actually resulted in higher total pay for the employee.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the appeal, holding that section 3(1) of the Employment Standards Act prohibits contracting out of the overtime provisions in section 24, making the agreement null and void regardless of whether it appeared beneficial to the employee.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by taking a collective agreement with a term of less than one year to a final offer vote.

A group of employees filed an application to terminate bargaining rights.

The Board found that the collective agreement did not operate retroactively and therefore its term violated section 58(1) of the Act.

The Board determined the collective agreement commenced on the date of execution, making the termination application untimely.

The unfair labour practice complaint was dismissed as the union's conduct was ambiguous.

The applicant sought to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

On the first day of the hearing, an agent for the applicant's counsel requested an adjournment and a change of venue to Thunder Bay, which the Board denied, noting the request was essentially a reconsideration of a prior decision and lacked merit.

The applicant's agent then withdrew, and the employer did not attend.

The Board proceeded to hear the union's evidence, which established that the applicant had circulated the decertification petition on work time with the employer's knowledge and had negotiated with the employer for wage increases if the union was decertified.

The Board found the employer initiated the termination application and dismissed it under section 63(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union's unfair labour practice complaint was dismissed as no specific relief was requested.

The applicant filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to pursue a grievance regarding his employment status.

The union and employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the applicant was a temporary employee excluded from the bargaining unit and that the application was delayed.

The Board dismissed the timeliness objection but dismissed the application on the basis that it did not disclose a prima facie case.

The Board found that the union and employer had consistently treated the applicant as a temporary employee outside the bargaining unit, and therefore the union owed him no duty of representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application for certification prior to a scheduled representation vote after discovering from the employer's response that the proposed bargaining unit involved two locations and more employees than anticipated.

The employer requested that the Board impose a bar on future applications, arguing the union knew the application would fail due to inadequate support.

The Board granted leave to withdraw the application without conditions, finding no abuse of process and noting that imposing a bar when the union saved the Board and employer the expense of a vote would be inappropriate.

The applicant, a correctional officer, was suspended after refusing to perform full duties in a young offender unit, citing medical restrictions from a recent injury.

The employer had withdrawn an offer of modified duties based on a Workers' Compensation Board finding that the applicant was fit for full duties, ignoring a mandatory medical examination report that outlined specific restrictions.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant was acting in compliance with and seeking enforcement of the Occupational Health and Safety Act when he asserted a health and safety risk and refused the assignment.

The Board concluded that the employer violated section 50(1) of the OHSA by suspending the applicant and ordered full compensation for lost wages and benefits.

The applicants requested leave to withdraw parts of their complaints against the union and individual respondents, citing alleged threats and potential physical harm to witnesses by one of the respondents.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to grant the withdrawals at this stage, noting that such conduct is prohibited by the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and raises concerns regarding the integrity of the Board's processes.

The Board directed the applicants to provide particulars of the alleged threats within ten days, failing which the allegations may be dismissed.

The applicant union sought interim orders under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to prevent the responding employer from implementing its final offer or recalling employees pending the disposition of an unfair labour practice complaint.

The union alleged that the employer's pre-vote conduct, including threats of plant closure and offers of cash payments, tainted a section 42 final offer vote.

The Board found an arguable case but dismissed the application, concluding that the balance of harm favoured the employer, who was suffering significant financial losses, over the union.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding employer argued that the union never held bargaining rights, or alternatively, that any such rights had been abandoned due to 16 years of inactivity.

The Board found that the employer had granted bargaining rights in 1976 by signing a voluntary recognition agreement.

Furthermore, the Board held that under the province-wide bargaining scheme for the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector, the union had not abandoned its bargaining rights, as abandonment in the ICI sector requires evidence that all affiliated bargaining agents and the employee bargaining agency have abandoned their rights.

The matter was directed to be relisted to address the employer's estoppel argument.

The employer requested reconsideration of a Board decision awarding damages to the union for unpaid wages and remittances under a construction industry collective agreement.

The employer argued it was denied natural justice because the union's grievance referral lacked particulars and the Board relied on hearsay evidence.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the employer had ample opportunity to obtain particulars during pre-hearing meetings but chose not to attend the settlement meeting or the hearing.

The Board held that the employer failed to exercise reasonable diligence and that the hearsay evidence was properly admitted given the employer's failure to defend the claim.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The intervenor argued the application was untimely under section 28(2) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997, as it was filed during the 10-day period following a request for an order under section 22.

The applicant contended that 'days' should be interpreted as 'working days', excluding weekends and holidays.

The Board held that in the absence of a statutory qualification limiting the period to working days, 'days' means calendar days.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as untimely.