Employment and Labour Law

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

The responding parties failed to file any response or notice of intent to participate.

The Board noted its rules permit it to deem the facts in the application as true and proceed without a hearing in default situations.

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

The applicant was directed to confirm whether any employees were affected or if the notice was posted, failing which the application would be dismissed.

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

The responding party employer failed to file a response or a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Participate.

Pursuant to the Board's Rules of Procedure, the Board deemed the facts in the application to be true and found the employer liable for breaching the collective agreement by hiring non-union employees and failing to pay required wages and benefits.

The Board ordered immediate compliance and scheduled a hearing to assess damages.

The applicant union filed a complaint concerning a work assignment under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the employer's decision to upgrade the Electrical Apprenticeship Program by incorporating instrumentation training effectively excluded its members from future postings in the merged Electrical/Instrumentation Department.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the employer properly assigned the work based on efficiency and qualifications as per the parties' agreement, and noted that nothing prevented the applicant's members from participating in the program.

The union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding earth moving work performed by the responding party for the construction of a golf course.

The central issue was whether the work fell within the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector or the roads sector.

The Board applied its established end-use test, concluding that a golf course is a commercial enterprise and therefore the work falls into the ICI sector.

The Board also dismissed the responding party's argument that an oral hearing was required, finding that Rule 110 permitted a decision based on written submissions.

The SEIU filed an unfair labour practice complaint and sought new representation votes under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, alleging irregularities by the Hospital and CUPE prior to the votes.

The Hospital and CUPE brought a motion to dismiss the complaint under s. 23(19) of the Act.

The Board granted the motion, finding that despite any alleged irregularities, the results of the representation votes reflected the true wishes of the majority of the employees in the bargaining units.

The Board appointed CUPE as the bargaining agent for both the Service Full-Time and Service Part-Time units.

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

Concurrently, his union filed a grievance which was settled, resulting in his reinstatement and back pay, which he accepted.

The applicant sought to continue his OHSA complaint to obtain additional relief.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that by accepting the benefits of the grievance settlement, the applicant had elected to proceed under the collective agreement pursuant to section 50(2) of the OHSA.

The Board also exercised its discretion under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act to decline to inquire further, as doing so would undermine the grievance settlement process.

The applicants filed a termination application to displace the Teamsters as their bargaining agent.

A representation vote was held, and the majority voted against the Teamsters.

The Teamsters alleged that the applicants did not meet the 40% threshold for the application and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging intimidation and coercion by the Labourers union, which supported the applicants.

The Board held that it could not revisit the 40% threshold issue, as it had already been determined without a hearing pursuant to s. 63(8) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint, finding that the allegations did not establish a prima facie case of intimidation or coercion that would vitiate the representation vote.

The termination application was granted.

The applicant, a supplier of toilet and clean up facilities, sought to appeal an inspector's order issued against a constructor under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The order found that the rented facilities did not meet regulatory requirements.

The Ministry of Labour argued the applicant lacked standing under section 61(1) of the Act because it was not the entity named in the order.

The Board held that the applicant met the broad definition of "employer" under the Act and could reasonably consider itself "aggrieved" by the order due to its adverse economic impact.

The preliminary motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of standing was dismissed.

The applicant union referred two grievances to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding party employer breached the collective agreement by hiring non-union employees and failing to make required remittances.

The employer admitted to using non-union labour but argued it was justified because the union withdrew a wage subsidy.

The Board rejected this defence, finding the employer knowingly violated the collective agreement.

The Board ordered the employer to pay $16,312.45 for unpaid remittances, $30,652.93 in damages for the use of non-union labour, and an additional $25,000 penalty pursuant to the collective agreement for knowingly violating its terms, totaling $71,965.38.

In a construction industry certification application, the union and employer disputed the voter eligibility of two individuals.

One individual had been off work on long-term disability for months prior to the application date and subsequently died.

The employer argued that 'but for' his disability, he would have been at work, and excluding him was discriminatory.

The Board rejected this argument, applying its strict 'rule of thumb' that only employees actively at work on the application date are eligible to vote in construction industry applications.

The second individual was at work performing electrical duties but had not yet completed his formal apprenticeship registration.

The Board found he was eligible to vote as he was within the 90-day window permitted by the Trades Qualification Act.

Because counting the single eligible segregated ballot would reveal the employee's choice, the Board ordered a new representation vote to protect ballot secrecy.

The employer sought reconsideration of a Board decision ordering that ballots cast in a representation vote be counted rather than sealed.

The employer argued that under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board must seal the ballot box upon receiving a notice of disagreement regarding the union's estimate of employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board interpreted section 8.1 pragmatically, holding that a reflexive sealing is not required unless there is a material difference serving a labour relations purpose.

However, because the employer clarified that the individual status of each eligible voter was in dispute (independent versus dependent contractors), the Board exercised its discretion to order the ballot box sealed and the ballots segregated.

The Labourers requested that the Board reconsider its decision assigning disputed work to the Carpenters.

The Labourers argued that the Board failed to properly apply its criteria for jurisdictional disputes and ignored evidence regarding bridge construction.

The Board held that it has discretion to consider relevant factors on a case-by-case basis and is not bound to mechanically apply a formula.

The Board found no reason to depart from its original assessment of area and employer practice, and denied the request for reconsideration.

The applicant brought an application to terminate bargaining rights under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union raised a preliminary issue, arguing that the applicant was an owner, not an employee, and therefore lacked standing to bring the application.

The Board found that the applicant was the only person performing bargaining unit work and had availed himself of an owner/operator exemption under the collective agreement to save on remittances.

The Board concluded that the applicant was an owner and dismissed the application.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer taxi company violated the Labour Relations Act by increasing plate lease rates and strictly enforcing a ban on 'jump calls' during a union organizing campaign.

The Board found that while the lease rate increase did not violate the statutory freeze because it was announced prior to the certification application, it was tainted by anti-union animus and violated sections 70, 72, and 76 of the Act.

The Board also found that the stricter enforcement of the jump call ban constituted a change in working conditions that violated the statutory freeze under section 86(2).

The employer was ordered to restore the previous lease rates and jump call practices.

The parent union (IBEW) assumed supervision and control over its local union (Local 1788) after the local's members voted to be represented by a different union and the local's executive began winding down its affairs and trust funds.

The local union filed an unfair labour practice complaint.

The IBEW moved to dismiss the complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case, and alternatively sought an interim order enforcing its supervision.

The Board dismissed the motion to dismiss, finding the complaint raised significant labour relations issues.

However, the Board granted the IBEW's request for an interim order, directing the local union to transfer control of its assets to the IBEW's appointed supervisor pending a final determination on whether the IBEW had just cause to assume supervision.

The appellant appealed an inspector's refusal to make an order regarding his removal by the union from the Joint Health and Safety Committee.

The union removed him after he refused to apologize for maligning the worker co-chair, as ordered by a union trial board.

The Board dismissed the appeal, finding no prima facie breach of the Occupational Health and Safety Act because the union is not a 'person' under s. 62(5)(a), the appellant was not exercising a power or duty under the Act when he circulated a memo criticizing the co-chairs, and internal union proceedings are not an 'action or other proceeding' under s. 65(1)(d).

The applicant union sought certification for an all-employee bargaining unit at the Ontario College of Teachers.

The College disputed the inclusion of several positions, arguing they exercised managerial functions or were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the Membership Records Officers and Client Services Officers, while aligned with management, did not possess sufficient independent decision-making authority or make effective recommendations regarding the economic lives of employees to be excluded.

The Board also denied the College's request to reconsider an earlier ruling that prevented it from calling evidence regarding Executive Secretaries, finding no prima facie case for their exclusion had been established.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent an all-employee bargaining unit at a newly formed Crown corporation.

The intervenor union argued that the proposed unit was inappropriate because it would dismantle pre-existing bargaining structures where the intervenor represented supervisory and professional employees.

The Board held that due to the statutory exclusion of successor rights in this privatization, there were no pre-existing bargaining structures binding the new employer.

Applying its standard test, the Board found that an all-employee bargaining unit was appropriate and that the employees shared a sufficient community of interest.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the employer engaged in intimidation and coercion during the organizing campaign.

The employer threatened to fire employees and shut down the job site if they voted for the union, and closely surveilled employees to prevent contact with union representatives.

The union lost the representation vote.

The Board found the employer blatantly violated the Labour Relations Act.

Due to recent legislative amendments to section 11, the Board could no longer automatically certify the union.

Instead, the Board ordered a second representation vote and granted extensive remedial relief, including union access to employees, a cease and desist order, and payment of the union's organizing costs.

The applicants alleged that the Mechanical Contractors Association of Windsor (MCAW) violated the Labour Relations Act by refusing to execute amendments to trust agreements to transform jointly trusteed pension and welfare funds into funds administered solely by union-appointed trustees, pursuant to a May 18, 1995 agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the May 18 agreement established a process for creating new trust plans administered solely by the union, it did not require the trustees of the existing benefit trusts to transfer the assets and funds for which they were responsible to the newly created trust plans.

The application was therefore dismissed.