Employment and Labour Law

The applicant sought a review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The employee did not appear at the hearing.

The Ministry of Labour consented to the application after reviewing the applicant's payroll records and confirming the employee had been paid the wages owed.

The Board rescinded the Order to Pay and ordered the Director to remit the funds held in trust, including administration costs, to the applicant.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union, alleging it violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to pursue grievances regarding lost overtime and his subsequent layoff.

The applicant had been laid off after refusing to work a night shift upon returning from a workplace injury.

The union, after obtaining a legal opinion, concluded the grievance would not succeed at arbitration and withdrew it.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that even if the union's assessment of the grievance's merits was incorrect, its decision was considered, not flagrantly erroneous, and did not constitute arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.

The applicant employer sought a suspension of a Ministry of Labour Inspector's order requiring the installation of machine guards on its screw machines, pending an appeal.

The Board applied the three-part test for suspending an order and found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that worker safety would not be endangered, nor did it establish a strong prima facie case for a successful appeal.

The application for suspension was dismissed.

The employer and intervener union sought reconsideration of a Board decision that excluded an employee on long-term disability from the voter list in a certification application.

They argued the exclusion violated the Charter and the Human Rights Code.

The Board dismissed the request, affirming its bright-line test for construction industry certifications, which requires employees to be actively at work on the application date.

The Board found no discrimination, as all absent employees are treated equally regardless of the reason for their absence, and the employee in question had no reasonable prospect of returning to work.

The applicant trade union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the respondent taxi company thwarted its organizing campaign through threats of closure, promoting an alternative employee association, undue surveillance, and dismissing a union supporter.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer breached sections 70, 72, and 76 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, by threatening to close the business if unionized and by actively supporting the formation of an alternative employee association.

The Board dismissed the allegations regarding surveillance and the employee's dismissal.

Despite finding some misconduct by the union regarding membership evidence, the Board ordered remedial relief, including a posting, a reading of the notice over the dispatch system, and the provision of employee contact information to the union.

The applicant City applied for declarations that the responding trade unions no longer represent its construction industry employees, asserting it is a non-construction employer under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding unions raised a constitutional challenge to sections 127.1 and 127.2 of the Act under the Charter.

The applicant sought to have the constitutional challenge determined on a preliminary basis, either by a motion to strike or following evidence on the constitutional issue alone.

The Board declined to hear the constitutional challenge as a preliminary matter, finding it premature as the Charter question would be moot if the applicant failed to establish it was a non-construction employer.

The Board directed that the constitutional issue be heard at the end of the proceedings.

The applicant employer sought a determination under section 27 of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 as to whether previously unrepresented employees, who were included in a bargaining unit following restructuring, had the right to strike during bargaining for a first collective agreement.

The employer argued that their terms and conditions of employment, which did not include the right to strike, continued under section 24(4).

The Board held that once included in the bargaining unit, the employees were represented by the union and governed by the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Consequently, they possessed the right to participate in a lawful strike called by the union.

The union alleged that the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith by failing to disclose its intention to suspend two members of the union's negotiating team without pay.

The employer had previously sent letters indicating it would investigate their conduct after the strike ended.

During negotiations, the union tabled and then withdrew a proposal to protect the negotiating team from discipline.

The Board found that the employer's initial letters provided sufficient disclosure for the union to formulate a bargaining response.

By withdrawing its proposal without seeking clarification, the union elected to take its chances.

The complaint regarding the duty to bargain in good faith was dismissed.

The applicant, North Simcoe Hospital Alliance, sought a declaration under section 9 of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act that the Act applied to it as a result of a merger of operations between Penetanguishene General Hospital and Huronia District Hospital.

The responding unions argued the Alliance was not an employer and that the merger events occurred prior to the transitional period.

The Board found the Alliance was a partnership and an employer under the Act.

The Board also held that while the merger was planned prior to the transitional period, the actual implementation of key merger decisions occurred during the transitional period, satisfying the requirements of section 9(1)(a).

The Board declared that the Act applied.

The employer filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint with the Board after referring the dispute to the Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the Construction Industry and receiving a favourable decision.

Bricklayers' Local 1 did not participate in the Plan proceedings and argued it was not bound by the Plan.

The Board found that Local 1 was not bound by the Plan, as it had not agreed to it and the International Union had no authority to bind it.

The Board declined to inquire into the jurisdictional dispute complaint, finding that the employer and Cement Masons had abused the Board's processes by circumventing an agreement to have the Board determine the dispute.

The applicants, former employees of General Motors who retired under a 1992 retirement incentive plan, alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation.

They claimed the union misrepresented their eligibility for a more lucrative $35,000 retirement allowance negotiated in 1993 and treated them differently from other employees who were permitted to return to active duty to qualify.

The Board dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith, noting that the union could not have known about the future incentive when the applicants enrolled in the earlier plan.

The union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of dependent contractors engaged as wholesalers distributing the Toronto Sun.

The employer objected, arguing the wholesalers were independent contractors.

After a representation vote with unsegregated ballots, the union conceded that some voters were independent contractors, rendering the vote a nullity.

The Board found the union's proposed criteria for distinguishing between dependent and independent contractors to be inherently uncertain, subjective, and unworkable.

The Board dismissed the application for failing to define a readily ascertainable bargaining unit, but declined the employer's request to impose a one-year bar on future applications.

The applicant union filed a certification application.

The responding party asserted it was not the employer of the proposed bargaining unit members, claiming they were employed by various personnel agencies.

The Board directed the parties to file detailed representations.

The applicant failed to file its representations on time, arguing it believed the identity of the employer was a 'status dispute' under Information Bulletin #4, which would allow a later filing.

The Board ruled that the identity of the employer is not a status dispute, refused to accept the applicant's late submissions, and dismissed the certification application for failing to establish a prima facie case that the responding party was the employer.

The Carpenters' union and the Labourers' union disputed the assignment of the carpentry portion of concrete forming work on two bridge projects in Board Area No. 8.

The employer, Ellis-Don Ltd., had assigned the work to the Carpenters.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board considered factors including employer practice, area practice, employer preference, and economy and efficiency.

The Board found that these factors supported the assignment of the disputed work to the Carpenters, while the remaining factors were neutral.

The Board ruled that the disputed work was properly assigned to the Carpenters.

The applicant trade union sought certification to represent a bargaining unit of masonry restoration employees, specifically steeplejacks, in the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector.

The Board examined the provincial bargaining scheme and the specific designation orders for construction trades.

The Board concluded that the Labourers' general designation does not cover steeplejacks, as they are specifically covered by the Cement Masons' designation.

Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to bring the application under section 158(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and the application was dismissed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined several unresolved issues between the union and the employer regarding an essential services agreement under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993.

The Board ruled that the employer may require overtime for essential services, subject to union challenge for abuse.

The Board also held that the parties must negotiate essential work functions, not merely designated positions.

Furthermore, if an employee exercises a work refusal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act due to inadequate staffing levels, the employer may unilaterally increase the number of essential workers to eliminate the unsafe condition, subject to Board review.

The Board also granted union representatives access to all worksites during a strike.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board, alleging the responding party general contractor violated a non-subcontracting clause by subcontracting work to a company not bound by the applicant's collective agreement.

The responding party and intervenor requested an adjournment to permit the filing of a jurisdictional dispute application, arguing the work was claimed by multiple trades.

The Board applied the Robertson Yates framework and granted the adjournment, finding that the dispute involved competing claims from three different trades and was more appropriately resolved as a jurisdictional dispute rather than a bilateral grievance arbitration.

The applicant union and responding Crown sought a determination from the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding which services involving court administration and Y2K preparation were 'essential services' under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993.

The Board held that the administration of the courts must continue without disruption during a strike or lock-out, and identified specific court personnel whose roles constitute essential services.

Regarding Y2K preparation, the Board ruled that essentiality requires a project-by-project assessment, directing the parties to negotiate specific projects and allowing the Crown to reapply before a strike or lock-out if necessary.

During a representation vote between OSSTF and CUPE, 13 segregated ballots remained uncounted.

OSSTF alleged that the parties had agreed not to count these ballots and that CUPE committed an unfair labour practice by contacting the segregated voters after the vote to ask how they voted, thereby breaching the secrecy of the ballot.

OSSTF sought a new vote or an order that the ballots not be counted.

The Board found no agreement existed to discount the ballots.

The Board also held that CUPE's post-vote inquiries, while perhaps unwise, did not violate the Labour Relations Act or compromise the integrity of the balloting process such that the voters should be disenfranchised.

The Board directed that the segregated ballots be counted.

The South Bruce Grey Health Centre applied to the Board under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 to determine the number and descriptions of bargaining units following the amalgamation of four predecessor hospitals.

The Board ruled that the bargaining units should span all four hospital locations rather than being site-specific, to facilitate administrative and programmatic changes.

Following this ruling, the parties agreed on the descriptions for an all-employees unit, a paramedical unit, and a nurses unit, and representation votes were ordered.