79 total
A geographic area with no employees on the application date is not an appropriate geographic area for certification.
Two trade unions applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act.
The applicants proposed bargaining units that included geographic areas where the employer had no employees working at the time of the applications.
The Board held that an 'appropriate geographic area' under subsection 144(1) of the Act must be an area where employees were actually employed on the application date.
The Board defined the appropriate bargaining units accordingly and directed that the applications be listed for hearing on the remaining issues.
Board lacks jurisdiction under s. 91(1) over a subcontracting grievance that does not directly demand a work assignment.
The complainant, a manufacturer of diffusers, brought a complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act alleging a work assignment dispute.
The respondent union had filed a grievance against a contractor, Megatech, alleging a violation of a subcontracting clause for purchasing diffusers from the complainant.
The Board held that it lacked jurisdiction under subsection 91(1) to entertain the complaint because the respondent union did not require the complainant to assign the work to its members, nor did it use Megatech as an agent to do so.
The complaint was dismissed.
Union certified; employee petition opposing certification given no weight due to lack of evidence on origination.
The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.
A group of employees filed a petition objecting to the certification.
The Board found that the objecting employees, who were unrepresented, failed to adduce first-hand evidence regarding the origination and circulation of the petition, and failed to account for its custody.
Consequently, the Board gave no weight to the petition.
As the union demonstrated membership support of more than 55 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit, the Board granted the application and issued the certificates.
Grievance dismissed; collective agreement's 'shop and field sketches' clause does not cover preparation of interference drawings.
The applicant union filed a construction industry grievance alleging that the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement by using non-union personnel to prepare interference drawings.
The union argued that interference drawings fell within the agreement's coverage of 'shop and field sketches' or, alternatively, its basket clause for 'all other work included in the jurisdictional claims' of the union.
The Board found a latent ambiguity in the agreement and admitted extrinsic evidence of past practice and negotiating history.
The Board concluded that the parties had never agreed to include interference drawings in the 'shop and field sketches' clause, and that the basket clause only covered work similar in nature to the specifically enumerated work.
The grievance was dismissed.
Board upheld its strict date-of-application rule for construction industry certification despite Sunday filing.
The applicant union filed an application for certification by registered mail on a Sunday.
The respondent employer and objecting employees argued that the Board should depart from its standard construction industry practice of assessing membership support based solely on the employees at work on the application date, arguing it would be inequitable given the weekend filing and the employer's normally larger weekday workforce.
The Board reviewed its jurisprudence regarding the 'date of application' rule in the construction industry and declined to depart from its established practice, finding no compelling reason to do so.
The matter was directed to be scheduled for a hearing on the remaining issues, including the union's request for certification under section 8.
Motion to dismiss certification application and impose a bar denied despite union's repeated filings.
The respondent employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the union's application for certification and impose a bar on future applications, arguing that the union had filed six applications for substantially the same group of employees in two months.
The Board declined to exercise its discretion under section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act to dismiss the application and impose a bar.
The Board found that while the union's slipshod manner of filing and withdrawing applications was not condoned, the mere frequency of the applications in these circumstances did not constitute an abuse of process or warrant depriving employees of their right to trade union representation.
Reconsideration of union certification dismissed; no evidence of fraud or abuse of process found.
An employee sought reconsideration of the Board's decision certifying the applicant union, alleging improper solicitation techniques and fraud.
The employee claimed another employee circulated a petition opposing the union but never intended to file it, acting as an agent for the union.
The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no evidence of fraud or abuse of process, and concluded the petitioning employee simply changed his mind.
Reconsideration of certification dismissed; no evidence of fraud or abuse of process found.
An employee sought reconsideration of a Board decision certifying the applicant union, alleging improper solicitation techniques and fraud.
The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no evidence of fraud or abuse of process, and concluded the petitioning employee was merely a supporter who changed his mind.
Reconsideration request set down for hearing on fraud allegations; improper solicitation claims dismissed as untimely.
An employee in the bargaining unit requested reconsideration of the Board's decision certifying the union.
The employee alleged improper solicitation techniques and fraud regarding a petition.
The Board dismissed the allegations of improper solicitation as untimely, since the employee conceded a lack of due diligence in investigating and raising them.
However, the Board found that the allegations of fraud regarding the petition suggested a serious abuse of process and set the matter down for a hearing to allow the employee to call evidence.
Board refused to allow employer to resile from agreed employee list and granted union certification.
The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.
The respondent employer attempted to resile from an earlier agreement regarding the list of employees in the bargaining unit on the application date.
The Board refused to allow the respondent to resile from its agreement, citing the need for finality in certification proceedings.
The Board also determined that one challenged individual was acting as a site superintendent and was therefore excluded from the bargaining unit.
As the union had sufficient membership support, the Board issued certificates for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector and all other sectors in the appropriate geographic area.
Direct deposit of wages does not constitute payment 'by cash' or 'by cheque' under the collective agreement.
The applicant union filed a grievance alleging that the employer's intention to implement a direct deposit system for paying wages violated the collective agreement, which required payment 'by cash' or 'by cheque'.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that direct deposit is neither payment by cash nor by cheque, as 'payment' means payment directly to the worker, and 'by cash' means payment of legal tender directly to the worker.
The Board declared that payment of wages by direct deposit would not comply with the collective agreement.
Related employer application dismissed; City's statutory financial involvement with Library Board did not warrant declaration.
The applicant union sought a declaration that the City of Etobicoke and the Etobicoke Public Library Board were related employers under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively that a sale of a business had occurred under section 63.
The union abandoned the section 63 claim.
The application arose after the Library Board contracted for the construction of a new library using non-union labour, while the City was bound by a collective agreement with the union.
The Board assumed without finding that the preconditions for a section 1(4) declaration were met, but declined to exercise its discretion to make the declaration.
The Board found that the City's involvement in the library construction was limited to its statutory financial obligations and did not constitute an attempt to avoid bargaining rights or interfere with the Library Board's labour relations.
The application was dismissed.
Board requires party moving for non-suit to elect whether to call evidence before ruling.
During a hearing for a reconsideration of a Board decision granting early termination of a collective agreement, the respondent company brought a motion to dismiss the interveners' application after the interveners concluded their evidence.
The company argued it should not have to elect whether to call evidence.
The Board characterized the motion as analogous to a non-suit motion in civil proceedings and directed that the company and the applicant union (who supported the motion) be put to their election as to whether they intend to call evidence before ruling on the motion.
Board refuses to admit union membership cards to protect confidentiality under section 111(1) of the Act.
During a hearing for a request to reconsider a decision consenting to the early termination of a collective agreement, the intervening union (USWA) sought to introduce union membership cards to corroborate evidence of an organizing campaign.
The incumbent union and the employer objected, arguing that if the cards were admitted, they should be entitled to examine them, including the identities of the signatories.
The Board held that section 111(1) of the Labour Relations Act protected the confidentiality of the cards even outside a certification application.
Balancing the limited probative value of the cards as hearsay evidence against the potential prejudice to the other parties and the legislative intent to protect union membership confidentiality, the Board exercised its discretion to refuse to admit the membership cards into evidence.
Union not required to include multiple geographic areas outside ICI sector in construction certification application.
The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry for a bargaining unit comprising the ICI sector province-wide and Board Area 8 for all other sectors.
The respondent employer argued that 5 employees working in Board Area 18 should be included in the bargaining unit.
The Board held that under section 144(1) of the Labour Relations Act, a union is not required to apply for more than one geographic area outside the ICI sector.
The Board excluded the Board Area 18 employees and appointed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the status of three other individuals.
Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed due to 13-month delay in challenging grievance settlement.
The complainants, employees in the construction industry, filed a complaint alleging their union breached its duty of fair representation by settling a policy grievance for multiple collective agreement violations.
The settlement was ratified by a majority of employees, but the complainants objected and subsequently pursued an unsuccessful civil action against the employer.
Thirteen months after the settlement, they filed this complaint seeking to overturn it and pursue claims dating back several years.
The Board exercised its discretion under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act to decline to inquire into the complaint, citing the significant delay, the prejudice to the established collective bargaining relationship, and the policy importance of expeditious dispute resolution in the construction industry.
Board declines to exclude unlawfully hired employees from bargaining unit due to interveners' lack of diligence.
In an application for certification, the interveners argued that certain employees should not be counted in the bargaining unit because they were hired contrary to the existing collective agreement, relying on the April Waterproofing principle.
The Board declined to apply the principle, finding that the interveners had failed to act with reasonable diligence to enforce their bargaining rights after becoming aware of the project's resumption.
The Board directed that the ballots of the eligible employees be counted for bargaining unit #1, and dismissed the application respecting bargaining unit #2.
In a displacement application, a non-craft union may acquire ICI bargaining rights limited to a specific Board area.
The Christian Labour Association of Canada (CLAC) applied for certification to displace the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 562, as the bargaining agent for sheet metal workers employed by Reitzel Heating & Sheet Metal Ltd. The central issue was the appropriate bargaining unit description in a displacement application where the incumbent held province-wide ICI bargaining rights but the applicant was not an affiliated bargaining agent.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that CLAC could not acquire province-wide bargaining rights, nor was it required to take an 'all trades' unit.
The Board held that the appropriate bargaining unit was limited to sheet metal workers and apprentices in the ICI sector in Board Area 6, balancing the statutory scheme of province-wide bargaining with the employees' right to choose their bargaining agent.
Collective agreement negotiated by an employer bargaining agency is a private matter not subject to Charter scrutiny.
The respondent employer raised the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a defence to a grievance alleging a violation of the union security clause (article 3) of a collective agreement.
The parties agreed to have the Board determine as a preliminary issue whether the collective agreement was subject to Charter scrutiny.
The Board found that the collective agreement was negotiated by entities that are not part of government, and the negotiation of a collective agreement is a private matter not involving the exercise of government policy or function.
Consequently, the Board held that the collective agreement is not subject to the Charter and directed that the grievance be heard on its merits.
Termination application filed ten weeks after certification held timely due to expiring provincial agreement.
The applicant filed an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights ten weeks after the union was certified.
The union raised preliminary objections, arguing the application was untimely under section 123(1) of the Labour Relations Act and requesting the Board exercise its discretion under section 103(2)(i) to bar the application.
The Board held that the application was timely under section 57(2)(a) because the union had become bound by a provincial agreement upon certification, and the application was filed during the last two months of that agreement's operation.
The Board also found it had no discretion under section 103(2)(i) to bar the application based on unsuccessful employee petitions filed during the certification process.
The preliminary objections were dismissed.
