Employment and Labour Law

The union applied for certification.

The employer argued that three dispatchers exercised managerial functions and were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations, and thus were not employees under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the dispatchers had no authority to make decisions or effective recommendations regarding hiring, firing, discipline, or other managerial functions.

The Board concluded the dispatchers were employees.

With their inclusion, the representation vote was 13 to 10 in favour of the union, and a certificate was issued.

The applicant, a 16-year-old employee, was assaulted by a customer in the employer's parking lot.

After the applicant swore at the customer and sought management assistance, the employer terminated his employment.

The applicant filed a reprisal complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing, finding that even if all allegations were true, the applicant had not established a prima facie case that his termination was a reprisal for exercising rights under the Act.

The Board noted it lacked jurisdiction to remedy general unfair treatment or grant the requested relief, which included directing the employer to initiate criminal prosecution.

The employer applied for a first contract direction under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union raised preliminary objections, arguing the applications were premature and should be dismissed.

The Board found the applications were premature but cured the irregularity under section 123 of the Act.

The Board further determined that the applications were properly governed by the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act (PSLRTA), which required the matter to be heard by a single vice-chair.

Ultimately, the parties concluded collective bargaining and ratified a Memorandum of Agreement, prompting the employer to seek leave to withdraw the applications.

The Board granted leave to withdraw.

Employees applied to terminate the Teamsters' bargaining rights in the ICI and roads sectors of the construction industry.

The Board determined that the proper responding party in the roads sector application was the Teamsters alone, not an uncertified council of trade unions.

The Board also held that the employer was properly identified as Tomlinson, Tarcon, and Beaver together, given a prior single employer declaration.

As more than fifty percent of the ballots cast were in opposition to the union, the termination applications were granted.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging intimidation of employees prior to a representation vote, but failed to file a detailed statement of representations within the five-day period required by the Board's rules.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the complaint was untimely, failed to disclose a prima facie case, and that a bar should be imposed on the union's certification application due to a prior withdrawal.

The Board condoned the late filing, finding the balance of convenience favoured the union and the employer suffered no significant prejudice.

The Board also found the complaint disclosed a prima facie case and declined to impose a bar, as the prior withdrawal was to correct an employee estimate and not an abuse of process.

The applicant union sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, arguing that a newly formed non-union plumbing business was under common control and direction with a defunct unionized plumbing business.

The responding parties argued that the personal bankruptcy of the key person severed the common control and direction.

The Board held that the personal bankruptcy did not change the individual's status as a key person or the controlling mind of the businesses.

The Board found the businesses were associated or related and under common control and direction, and exercised its discretion to issue a single employer declaration.

Following a hospital restructuring, the successor employer and one union sought a single comprehensive bargaining unit for all service and office/clerical employees.

Two other unions argued for maintaining separate bargaining units for service employees and office/clerical employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that two separate bargaining units were appropriate.

The Board held that while a single unit might be appropriate, the existing separate units had been effective and there was no evidence of labour relations difficulties.

Maintaining the separate units would cause the least disruption to the existing pattern of collective bargaining and was consistent with the purposes of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act.

The Northwest GTA Hospital Corporation applied under the Public Sector Labour Transition Act to resolve outstanding issues prior to ordering representation votes following a hospital amalgamation.

The Board determined the composition of office and clerical units, and declined to maintain separate bargaining units for stationary engineers and Etobicoke paraprofessionals, opting instead for broader service and paramedical/technical units to avoid undue fragmentation.

The Board also ordered the employer to provide the unions with employee names and addresses to facilitate access prior to the representation votes.

The union referred a grievance to the Board under s. 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the employer failed to apply the Principal Agreement to work on a blast furnace.

The union argued that a previous consent order of the Board regarding a similar grievance established that the work was construction work and that the employer was bound by the agreement, relying on res judicata and issue estoppel.

The Board rejected this argument, finding that the previous consent order was reached without litigating the merits, and therefore the doctrines did not apply.

The Board also declined to hear evidence regarding the settlement discussions that led to the consent order, emphasizing the importance of protecting the settlement process.

The applicant union (CUPE) alleged that the employer hospital improperly assigned work normally performed by a Pharmacy Storekeeper in its bargaining unit to an Inventory Management Technician in the OPSEU bargaining unit.

The Board found that the work had historically been performed by a CUPE member and that the employer's preference for a technician did not justify removing the work from the CUPE unit, given the strong job protection language in the CUPE collective agreement.

The Board directed the employer to restore the work to the CUPE bargaining unit.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer parties bargained in bad faith by failing to recognize a collective agreement that the union claimed was ratified by its members.

The negotiations involved three parties: the union, the taxi brokerage, and an associates committee.

The union had put two separate, incomplete, and somewhat inconsistent employer proposals to a ratification vote.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the proposals were not complete or intended as final offers capable of forming a collective agreement upon ratification, and that the employers had not violated the Act.

The applicant unions filed unfair labour practice complaints and applications for the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration against the responding related employers in the construction industry.

The Board found that the employers breached sections 70 and 72 of the Labour Relations Act by completely refusing to recognize the bargaining authority of the unions and failing to apply an existing collective agreement.

The Board dismissed Local 793's first collective agreement application because it was already bound by a collective agreement, but granted Local 183's application, directing the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration under section 43(2)(d) due to the protracted and entrenched failure of the parties to meaningfully bargain.

The applicant employer, Progistix, sought a cease and desist order against its employees and their union, the CEP, alleging an unlawful strike.

The employees had delayed crossing a picket line set up by striking Bell Canada employees (also represented by the CEP) at their shared premises.

The Board found that the concerted delay in crossing the picket line constituted an unlawful strike under the Labour Relations Act, and that the union and its officials had unlawfully authorized and encouraged this action.

The Board issued a cease and desist order against the employees and the union, but declined to restrict the picketing itself, finding it was in connection with a lawful strike against Bell Canada.

The union applied for certification and the employer filed a notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, challenging the union's 40% support.

The ballot box from the representation vote was sealed.

The union sought reconsideration of a procedural ruling, arguing that newly discovered evidence showed 15 individuals were improperly on the voters list, and that removing them would give the union the appearance of 40% support.

The Board agreed, reconsidered its ruling, and ordered the ballots counted.

The Board also dismissed the employer's unfair labour practice complaint, finding that the union's campaign literature did not constitute intimidation or coercion.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union, alleging it failed to diligently pursue his discharge arbitration and failed to respond to his agent's request to raise an Occupational Health and Safety Act argument.

The Board dismissed the delay allegation, finding no evidence the union caused the arbitration delays.

However, the Board found the union's failure to communicate its decision not to pursue the OHSA argument constituted arbitrary conduct in violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board allowed the complaint in part but declined to order a remedy, as the applicant had since received an answer and the breach was not egregious.

The applicants filed an application to terminate bargaining rights under section 63(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding union argued the application should be dismissed because it was not delivered to the union before or on the day it was filed with the Board, as required by section 63(3) and Rule 43bb.

The Board found the applicants failed to comply with the statutory and procedural requirements for delivery and dismissed the application.

The applicant Carpenters union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of tending work for scaffolding erection at a restoration project.

The employer, Aluma, had assigned the work of providing scaffolding materials to its carpenter employees to an apprentice carpenter.

The Labourers union claimed the work.

The Board considered area practice, employer preference, and other factors.

Finding that the area practice in Board Area 21 strongly favoured assigning tending work to labourers, the Board declared that the tending work (excluding unloading and initial placement) should have been assigned to a member of the Labourers.

The applicant trade union sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, to treat Royal Taxi and various Associates as a single employer.

The union had recently certified only the brokerage (Royal Taxi) and subsequently negotiated a collective agreement with it.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to make the declaration, finding that the union had strategically chosen to certify only the brokerage and that adding the Associates now would unfairly disrupt the newly negotiated collective agreement, which did not address Associate-specific issues.

The applicant hospital, a successor hospital following an amalgamation, applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 for a determination of the number and descriptions of bargaining units.

The Board determined that there should be seven bargaining units spanning all three hospital sites.

The Board maintained separate units for stationary engineers, McLean House employees, office and clerical employees, and service employees, but combined part-time and full-time employees into single units for each category.

The applicant union referred a grievance concerning work performed by the responding party on a site intended for a golf course.

The responding party argued the work—topsoil stripping, stockpiling, and pond excavation—did not fall within the definition of 'construction industry' under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board applied the framework from Mannix Co. Ltd., considering the nature of the work, the equipment used, and the employer's business, and concluded the work was within the construction industry.

The Board directed the responding party to file submissions establishing a prima facie case that the work is not in the ICI sector before scheduling an oral hearing.