79 total
Objection to representation vote dismissed where employees ignored official Board notice and relied on employer's letter.
Three employees objected to a representation vote regarding the termination of the respondent union's bargaining rights, claiming they missed the vote because they relied on a letter from the employer that listed an alternate date, rather than the Board's official notice.
The Board dismissed the objection, finding that the employer had properly posted the Board's official notices which clearly stated the date and time of the vote.
The Board held that employees who ignore official Board notices in favour of employer communications do so at their own peril and are the authors of their own misfortune.
Seasonal construction employees preparing equipment at a plant are covered by the construction collective agreement.
The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's asphalt plant operations.
The parties disputed whether six seasonal employees engaged in preparatory work at the plant/shop should be included in the bargaining unit.
The majority of the Board found that these employees were covered by the existing Kingston area agreement for construction operations, as they were construction employees temporarily preparing equipment.
Consequently, they were excluded from the proposed bargaining unit.
A representation vote was ordered for the remaining eligible employees.
Board determines bargaining unit composition for construction certification, including mechanics but excluding truck drivers.
The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.
The parties disputed whether seven employees were in the bargaining unit on the application date.
Applying the Gilvesy test, the Board excluded three employees who spent the majority of their time as truck drivers and two who were not engaged in construction work on the application date.
However, the Board included two equipment mechanics who regularly performed repair work both on-site and in the shop, finding them commonly associated in their work with on-site employees under section 117(b) of the Labour Relations Act.
A representation vote was ordered.
Union breached duty of fair referral by arbitrarily bypassing established hiring hall list without considering alternatives.
The complainant alleged that the respondent union breached section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by acting arbitrarily in its administration of the hiring hall referral list.
The union's area steward bypassed the complainant, who was third on the list, and referred two other members to a short-term job because they lived closer to the site and could monitor it for non-union labour.
The Board found that while the steward acted without malice, his failure to even consider whether following the established list would have satisfied his concerns constituted arbitrary conduct.
The Board ruled that the union breached section 69.
Res judicata does not bar a construction certification application where a prior application was converted.
The applicant union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act.
The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the application was barred by res judicata because a previous application between the same parties had been resolved.
The Board dismissed the objection, finding that the previous application had been converted to a general application by agreement, and therefore the Board had not determined whether the employer operated in the construction industry.
The parties agreed to exchange documents and scheduled further hearing dates to resolve the remaining issues.
Board dismisses employer's preliminary objection, finding union did not abandon ICI sector bargaining rights.
The applicant unions referred a grievance to the Board.
The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the unions had abandoned their bargaining rights due to a lengthy period of inactivity.
The Board found that the unions had not abandoned their bargaining rights in the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector, noting that under the province-wide bargaining provisions of the Labour Relations Act, the failure of an affiliated bargaining agent to administer a provincial agreement locally does not constitute abandonment by the employee bargaining agency.
The preliminary objection was dismissed and the matter was referred for a hearing on the merits.
Board grants successor rights declaration following valid transfer of jurisdiction between union locals.
The applicant union, Local 353, sought a declaration of successor rights under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act, claiming it acquired the jurisdiction of Local 636 over the employees of the respondent employer.
The employer objected, arguing the transaction was not a transfer of jurisdiction and expressing concern about being bound by a provincial agreement.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that a valid transfer of jurisdiction had occurred in accordance with the union's constitution, and that the employees had been adequately notified and voted in favour.
The Board granted the declaration, noting that a successor union acquires only the rights and privileges of its predecessor.
Union certified without representation vote after Board rejects late addition to employee list and upholds membership evidence.
The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of the respondent's employees.
The Board reconsidered and varied a portion of its previous decision regarding the intervener's bargaining rights.
On the merits of the certification, the Board refused to allow the respondent to add an employee to the list after multiple previous amendments, noting the information was always in the respondent's control.
The Board also found the applicant's documentary evidence of membership to be unambiguous and reliable.
As the applicant demonstrated membership support of over fifty-five percent, the Board issued certificates to the applicant without a representation vote.
Grievance seeking recovery of overpaid allowances dismissed as untimely due to employer's delay.
The applicant employer referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking to recover approximately $14,000 in room and board allowances allegedly improperly paid to a former employee.
The respondent union raised preliminary objections, including that the grievance was untimely.
The Board found that the employer had delayed considerably in filing the grievance, having first pursued criminal charges and civil litigation before turning to arbitration.
The Board declined to exercise its discretion under section 44(6) of the Act to extend the time limits, upholding the union's preliminary objection and dismissing the application.
Application to terminate bargaining rights dismissed as allegations of intimidation did not constitute fraud.
The applicants sought a declaration under section 58 of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent union no longer represented the employees, alleging that a supervisor was involved in the union's organizing drive and intimidated employees into signing membership cards.
The Board dismissed the application without an inquiry into the merits, finding that the allegations, even if true, did not constitute fraud within the meaning of section 58.
The Board noted that such allegations of employer involvement and intimidation could be filed under other sections of the Act, but would raise concerns of timeliness.
Board denies adjournment in certification application and defines appropriate construction industry bargaining unit.
The applicant union sought certification for construction labourers employed by the respondent.
The respondent and intervener requested an adjournment, arguing the Board needed to interpret an existing collective agreement and address a related employer issue.
The Board denied the adjournment, finding it unnecessary to interpret the existing agreement to determine the appropriate bargaining unit, and noting the related employer issue was not properly before it.
The Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and scheduled further hearings to resolve disputes over the list of employees.
Application to terminate bargaining rights dismissed; prior settlement precluded reliance on petition challenging union support.
The applicant sought to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act, challenging a voluntary recognition agreement.
The applicant attempted to rely on a Statement of Desire (petition) that had been filed during a previous, withdrawn certification application.
The Board held that a prior settlement agreement, which resolved the certification application and implicitly treated the petition as involuntary, precluded the applicant from relying on the petition in the current proceedings.
As the petition was deemed irrelevant and the union had majority membership support at the time of recognition, the application was dismissed.
Employer committed unfair labour practice by discharging key union supporter; reinstatement and compensation ordered.
The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer discharged two employees, Connie Campbell and Steven Cliche, due to their union activities.
The Board found that Campbell, a key union supporter, was discharged because of her trade union activity and her insistence on her statutory rights, in violation of the Labour Relations Act and a prior settlement agreement.
The Board ordered her reinstatement with full compensation and directed the employer to post a notice of employees' rights.
The complaint regarding Cliche was dismissed, as the Board found his discharge was not motivated by anti-union animus.
Union did not breach duty of fair representation by applying two-job rule to striking member.
The complainant, a union member on strike from his regular employment, alleged that his union breached section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to refer him to a job through its hiring hall.
The union applied its 'two-job rule', which required members to quit their current employment before being dispatched to a new job.
The complainant argued this rule was applied arbitrarily and discriminatorily, particularly compared to the treatment of 'travellers' from other locals.
The Board found that the rule had a cogent labour relations purpose to equitably distribute work among unemployed members.
The Board concluded the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith, and dismissed the complaint.
Board finds union's counter-petition in certification application was signed voluntarily by employees.
The respondent employer and a group of objecting employees challenged the application.
A petition opposing certification and a counter-petition reaffirming support for the union were filed.
The Board held a hearing to determine the voluntariness of the counter-petition.
After reviewing the evidence regarding its origination, preparation, and circulation, the Board found that the counter-petition was signed voluntarily, free from threats, intimidation, or undue influence.
The matter was referred to the Registrar to schedule further hearings on outstanding issues.
Employees laid off before reporting to work on application date excluded from construction industry bargaining unit count.
The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry and challenged the respondent employer's list of employees.
The union argued that four employees who were laid off on the morning of the application date, before reporting to work, should be included in the bargaining unit count.
The Board held that in construction industry applications, only employees actually at work on the date of application are included in the count.
Since the four employees did not perform any work on that date, they were excluded from the count.
Employer in construction hiring hall context may reasonably require medical clearance for worker with prior injury.
A grievance was referred to the Board concerning an employer's refusal to employ a sheet metal worker referred through the union hiring hall.
The worker had a prior compensable back injury and the employer's last information from the Workers' Compensation Board indicated he was only fit for modified work.
The employer refused to allow the worker on a heavy industrial job site without updated medical clearance.
The Board held that, analogous to an industrial setting, the employer had reasonable grounds to require medical clearance before allowing the worker to perform unrestricted duties, and dismissed the grievance.
Preliminary objections to grievance referral dismissed; grievance presumed delivered by mail.
The applicant referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.
The respondent raised preliminary objections, arguing that the grievance was not delivered prior to the referral and that the applicant failed to follow the grievance procedure in the collective agreement.
The Board dismissed both objections, finding that the grievance was presumed delivered by mail under section 113(1) of the Act and that section 124 creates a distinct dispute resolution process separate from the collective agreement.
Employer breached collective agreement by bypassing union hiring hall to employ non-union oiler.
The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement by employing a non-union member as an oiler without first calling the union's hiring hall.
The Board denied the respondent's request for an adjournment pending a judicial review application.
On the merits, the Board found the respondent breached the union security clause, ordered compensation for lost wages and benefits to be paid in trust, and issued a cease-and-desist order.
