79 total
Application to terminate bargaining rights dismissed as it was jointly initiated with management.
The applicant, who operated an insulation business with his wife, applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights.
The union brought a non-suit motion, arguing the applicant was a principal of the company and that the application was not voluntary.
The Board granted the non-suit motion and dismissed the application, finding that even if the applicant were considered an employee, the decision to bring the application was made jointly with his wife, who managed the business.
Therefore, the application did not represent a voluntary expression of employee wishes free from management influence.
Union certification applications dismissed because authorization cards did not constitute valid membership evidence under the Act.
The applicant union sought certification for three groups of employees, submitting authorization cards as evidence of employee support.
The employer argued the cards merely expressed a desire for representation and did not constitute 'membership' or an 'application for membership' as required by the Labour Relations Act.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed the statutory history, including the impact of Bill 40, and concluded that the legislative changes did not alter the fundamental requirement for actual membership or an application for membership.
Finding that the authorization cards did not meet this standard, and refusing to admit oral evidence to cure the documentary defect, the Board dismissed the certification applications.
Application dismissed; conversion of cinema to live theatre did not constitute a sale of a business.
The applicant union alleged that the respondent non-profit community theatre purchased a part of the business of the predecessor cinema operator when it acquired a theatre building, and thus was a successor employer under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.
The respondent purchased the cinema and renovated it for live theatre performances.
The Board found that the respondent did not acquire a distinct part of the predecessor's configuration of assets, nor was there a continuation of the work performed by the employees.
The application was dismissed as no sale of a business occurred.
Employer violated collective agreement by discriminatorily denying overtime to an employee who previously filed a grievance.
The union referred a grievance to the Board alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to offer overtime work to an employee because he had previously filed a grievance.
The Board found that while the employer's general method of assigning overtime was reasonable and consistent with industry practice, its specific decision to exclude the grievor from a crew where all other members were offered overtime was unexplained and discriminatory.
The Board declared that the employer violated the collective agreement but declined to order monetary damages due to insufficient evidence, remaining seized of the issue.
Board resolves conflicting bargaining rights after security contract change by declaring municipal-wide union as sole agent.
The applicant, Ensign Security Services Inc., acquired security contracts at three sites in Ottawa previously held by Pinkerton's and Burns.
The United Steelworkers of America held bargaining rights for the predecessor employers' employees, while the Canadian Security Union held municipal-wide bargaining rights for Ensign's employees.
Ensign applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under sections 64 and 64.2 of the Labour Relations Act to resolve the conflict in bargaining rights resulting from the intermingling of employees.
The Board found that section 64.2 acts as a doorway to section 64, and does not mandate site-specific bargaining rights that override broader-based rights.
To avoid severe fragmentation and administrative difficulties, the Board declared that Ensign is no longer bound by the predecessor's collective agreement with the Steelworkers, and that the Canadian Security Union is the bargaining agent for all Ensign security guards in the region.
Union certified; prior petition against different union and unrelated intimidation allegations dismissed.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent the Meat Department employees of the responding party.
Objecting employees filed a statement of desire opposing representation by a different union, which the Board gave no weight because it predated the membership cards and referred to a different organizing drive.
The employer alleged that a union organizer engaged in intimidation during a prior organizing drive, but the Board dismissed the allegations without a hearing, finding no nexus to the current application.
Satisfied that more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit had applied to become members, the Board granted the application and issued a certificate.
Board combined seven movie theatre bargaining units to reduce fragmentation and facilitate stable collective bargaining.
The applicant union applied under section 7 of the Labour Relations Act to combine seven separate bargaining units of front-of-house employees at various movie theatres operated by the responding party in Ontario.
The employer opposed the application, arguing that the union should have requested combination at the time of certification and that geographically separate units should remain distinct.
The Board granted the application, finding that combining the units would reduce fragmentation and facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining without causing serious labour relations problems.
A dissenting opinion would have kept the Guelph and Sudbury locations as separate units to allow for more local decision-making.
Union certification granted for a site-specific bargaining unit at a single movie theatre complex.
The applicant trade union applied for certification for a site-specific bargaining unit of employees at a single movie theatre complex.
The responding party employer argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should encompass multiple theatres in the Metropolitan Toronto area to avoid fragmentation.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the site-specific bargaining unit was appropriate for collective bargaining, consistent with previous Board decisions.
As the union demonstrated support from more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the unit, the Board ordered that a certificate issue.
Board includes summer students in full-time bargaining unit, finding it appropriate under amended Labour Relations Act.
The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at General Signal Limited.
The parties agreed that the unit should include both full-time and part-time employees pursuant to section 6(2.1) of the Labour Relations Act, but disagreed on whether summer students should be included.
The employer argued that the omission of summer students from section 6(2.1) meant they should be excluded, while the union argued for their inclusion based on the Board's historical practice of treating part-time employees and summer students in tandem.
The Board found that the statutory amendments favoured broader-based bargaining structures and that a unit comprising full-time employees and summer students was appropriate and viable.
The Board granted the application and certified the union for the proposed unit.
Board declined to impose a bar or order a vote on a refiled certification application.
The applicant trade union filed a second application for certification after withdrawing its first application to avoid a potential representation vote due to a dispute over the inclusion of three employees.
The responding employer argued this was a manipulation of the Board's processes and requested the Board impose a bar on the application or order a representation vote.
The Board declined to impose a bar, finding no special or extreme circumstances, and refused to order a vote, noting that the union's actions were not improper and any limitation on objecting employees resulted from the operation of the Labour Relations Act, not the union's conduct.
An interim certificate was issued.
Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed on non-suit; union reasonably refused to arbitrate unmeritorious discharge grievance.
The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to take his discharge grievance to arbitration.
The applicant had previously been discharged and reinstated under a strict memorandum of settlement.
Following further infractions, he was discharged again.
The union processed the grievance but ultimately decided not to proceed to arbitration, concluding it could not succeed.
The Board granted the union's motion for non-suit at the close of the applicant's case, finding no evidence that the union acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner.
Board maintains original application date despite union's amendment to bargaining unit description; certification granted.
The applicant trade union applied for certification, initially characterizing the application as pertaining to the construction industry.
When it became apparent the employer was not in the construction industry, the union amended the bargaining unit description.
The employer argued the application date should be changed to the date of the amendment.
The Board rejected this argument, treating the initial characterization as a technical error and maintaining the original application date.
Finding that more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant, the Board issued a certificate.
Board dismisses Millwrights' grievance but allows Operating Engineers' grievance regarding scope of collective agreements.
Two unions referred grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding work performed by the employer on a barge.
The employer argued the work was ship repair/refitting and not covered by the construction industry collective agreements.
The Board dismissed the Millwrights' grievance, finding the work on a chattel (the barge) was not 'construction' under their provincial agreement, nor did it qualify as 'maintenance' under their maintenance agreement.
However, the Board allowed the Operating Engineers' grievance, finding their province-wide agreement was not restricted to the construction industry and applied to the crane operation work which constituted steel erection or mechanical installation.
Pay Equity Office lacks standing to enforce Review Officer orders when parties have settled.
The Pay Equity Office (P.E.O.) applied to the Tribunal seeking to enforce a Review Officer's order against the employer and the union.
The employer and the union had previously settled their dispute regarding the pay equity plan and argued that the P.E.O. lacked standing to challenge their settlement or enforce the order.
The Tribunal held that the P.E.O. is not a party to proceedings under subsection 32(1) of the Pay Equity Act and does not meet the test for participation under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
The Tribunal concluded that the P.E.O. has no statutory jurisdiction to review settlements or enforce orders in these circumstances, and dismissed the application for lack of standing.
Union certification application dismissed because employees did not meet the union's constitutional eligibility requirements.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent.
The union's constitution restricted membership to employees of a different company, and the union had no established practice of admitting persons to membership without regard to these eligibility requirements.
Applying section 105(4) of the Labour Relations Act and the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, the Board found that the employees could not be considered members of the applicant.
The application for certification was dismissed.
Union certified after employee petition opposing certification was found involuntary due to perceived employer interference.
A group of employees filed a petition opposing the certification.
The Board found that the union had sufficient membership support for automatic certification, subject to the voluntariness of the petition.
After hearing evidence from the objectors, the union moved for a non-suit.
The Board granted the motion, finding the petition involuntary because it was circulated with the assistance of individuals closely associated with management and in a context where the employer had expressed opposition to the union.
As the petition was given no weight, the Board issued a certificate to the applicant union.
Representation vote for termination of bargaining rights ordered via mail-in ballot for single-employee unit.
The applicant applied to terminate the bargaining rights held by the respondent union.
All parties agreed that the union's right to continue representing the bargaining unit should be determined by a representation vote under section 58(3) of the Act.
Because the applicant was the sole employee in the bargaining unit, the Board found it impractical to use standard voting mechanics.
With the consent of all parties, the Board directed that the representation vote be conducted by a mail-in ballot sent to the applicant.
Board has jurisdiction over construction grievances involving non-construction work; intervener status denied without jurisdictional dispute.
The applicants referred grievances to the Board under section 126 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent failed to employ their members for work on a cargo vessel.
The respondent argued the work was performed by its Marine Division under different collective agreements and was not construction work.
The Board held it has jurisdiction under section 126 to hear grievances arising from construction industry collective agreements, regardless of whether the specific work is deemed construction.
The Board also denied intervener status to another union that claimed the work but had not filed a jurisdictional dispute, finding it had no legal right to participate in the grievance proceedings.
Employer ordered to pay delinquent benefit remittances, collection costs, and wages for improper layoff.
The union filed a grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act alleging the employer failed to remit contributions to various benefit funds and failed to properly pay an employee upon layoff.
The Board found the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to provide the employee with his final pay and employment records at the time of layoff.
The Board also found the employer liable for delinquent benefit remittances and ordered the payment of liquidated damages and collection costs as stipulated in the collective agreement.
Employer bound by pick-up agreement must calculate travel allowance from local contractor's permanent yard.
The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer failed to pay a travel allowance required by the collective agreement.
The dispute centered on whether the 'employer's yard' for calculating the travel allowance referred to the local contractor's permanent yard (McFarland yard) or the respondent's temporary yard on the job site.
The Board upheld the grievance, finding that under the 'pick-up' agreement, the respondent was bound to the terms of the local McFarland Agreement, which required calculating the travel allowance from the McFarland yard to equalize competitive positions.
