Brian Shell

The applicant employee applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The applicant submitted a petition signed by a sufficient number of employees.

The Board inquired into the voluntariness of the petition.

The applicant, a former supervisor who retained a close relationship with management, circulated the petition.

The Board found that employees would reasonably perceive the applicant as closely associated with management and might fear that management would learn whether they signed.

Given this perception, the unusual lack of discussion before signing, and the applicant's unreliable testimony, the Board concluded the applicant failed to prove the petition represented the voluntary wishes of the employees.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether four individuals were employees.

The respondent employer argued the application should be dismissed without a hearing on the merits because the parties had previously agreed during a certification application that the individuals exercised managerial functions and were excluded from the bargaining unit.

The union contended the agreement was only for the purposes of the count.

The Board found that the prior decision recorded an agreement on employee status, which triggered the Westmount Hospital policy restricting subsequent applications.

The Board declined to go behind the prior decision and dismissed the application.

The complainants alleged contraventions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Labour Relations Act.

During preliminary matters, the Board ruled on two issues.

First, the Board ordered that the complainant's adviser be permitted to attend a view of the respondent's premises, finding it necessary for a fair hearing and noting no prejudice to the respondent.

Second, the Board dismissed the respondent's request to exclude the press from the hearing room, holding that hearings are presumptively open to the public and the respondent had not met the onus under section 9(1)(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to justify an in camera hearing.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices by refusing to agree to a return-to-work protocol that would displace strike replacements in favour of striking employees, and by subsequently withdrawing its monetary offer.

The employer argued that the reverse onus provision in section 89(5) of the Labour Relations Act violated its equality rights under section 15 of the Charter.

The Board held that section 89(5) does not violate the Charter because the distinction between employers and others is not based on personal characteristics protected by section 15.

On the merits, the Board found that the employer's insistence on retaining strike replacements while recalling striking employees only as vacancies arose was motivated by a desire to discriminate against the strikers for exercising their right to strike, violating sections 64 and 66 of the Act.

Consequently, the employer's bargaining stance also violated the duty to bargain in good faith under section 15.

The Board ordered the employer to table a non-discriminatory return-to-work protocol and compensate the striking employees.

The complainant, a structural steelfitter's helper, was assigned sweeping duties upon returning to work.

He objected to the assignment, considering it a constructive demotion, and was eventually discharged for refusing to sweep.

The union assisted him in filing a discharge grievance and attempted to negotiate his reinstatement, but the complainant refused to return if it meant sweeping.

The union membership subsequently voted against taking the grievance to arbitration.

The complainant alleged the union breached its duty of fair representation.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding no evidence of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union, which had reasonably concluded the employer was within its rights to assign the work.

The applicants sought a declaration that A & P was a successor employer to New Dominion Stores Inc. following a corporate reorganization, and that an intermingling of employees had occurred, justifying the termination of Local 206's bargaining rights or a representation vote.

The Board found that a sale of a business had occurred and A & P was bound by the collective agreement with Local 206.

However, the Board found no intermingling of employees and declined to order a representation vote.

To resolve the conflict between the provincial agreement and Local 206's agreement, the Board amended both agreements to confine Local 206's rights to the specific Chatham store.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The employer and objectors raised several issues regarding the membership evidence, including the voluntariness of counter-petitions, the status of an employee who quit before the terminal date, and a non-pay allegation involving a loaned initiation fee not disclosed on the Form 9 Declaration.

The Board found the counter-petitions voluntary, held that the quit employee's card remained valid, and determined the loan was a bona fide transaction that did not invalidate the membership evidence.

Finding that over 55% of the employees were members, the Board certified the union without a representation vote.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a unit of maintenance employees who were already part of a larger plant-wide bargaining unit represented by the intervener trade union.

The applicant sought to carve out these employees under section 6(1) of the Labour Relations Act, arguing they had not been adequately represented by the intervener.

The Board held that this reason alone was insufficient to depart from its established policy requiring a displacement applicant to take all employees in the existing bargaining unit.

Finding the proposed unit inappropriate for collective bargaining, the Board dismissed the application and directed the destruction of the ballots cast in the pre-hearing representation vote.

The union applied for certification and filed unfair labour practice complaints.

The employer refused to post the required Board notices to employees.

Board officers, accompanied by a sheriff's officer, forcibly entered the employer's premises to post the notices.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing that the Board lacked jurisdiction to use force and that its actions created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Board dismissed the objections, holding that its statutory power to enter premises to post notices implicitly includes the authority to use reasonable force.

The Board found that a reasonable person would view the actions as fulfilling the Board's statutory duties, not as allying with the union.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed an unfair labour practice by discharging a union activist for picket line misconduct during a lawful strike.

The grievor had handed a bullet to a non-striking employee and spat in his face.

The union argued the discharge was disproportionate and motivated by anti-union animus.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer met its burden under section 89(5) of the Labour Relations Act to prove the discharge was not tainted by anti-union motive.

The Board concluded the employer's response, whether just or not, was genuinely based on the severe nature of the picket line incident rather than the grievor's union activities.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a unit of maintenance electricians employed by the respondent mining company.

The union argued that the electricians constituted a craft unit deemed appropriate under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board reviewed extensive evidence of the union's bargaining practices across various industries in Canada and the United States.

The Board found that outside the construction and related industries, the union did not commonly bargain separately and apart for maintenance electricians.

Consequently, the union failed to meet the mandatory criteria of section 6(3) and was not entitled to a separate craft bargaining unit.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union 18 months after the arbitration hearing concerning his discharge.

The union and the intervener employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the delay.

The Board applied the criteria from the City of Mississauga decision and found that the delay was substantial and without compelling reason.

Given the potential prejudice to the union, particularly the fading recollection of the union representative who had disposed of his notes, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to inquire into the merits and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant trade union filed an unfair labour practice complaint 15 months after the termination of an employee, alleging the discharge was motivated by anti-union animus.

The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the complaint should be dismissed due to extreme delay.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed its jurisprudence on delay and the equitable doctrine of laches.

While finding the delay of 11 months unreasonable, the Board concluded that the respondent suffered no substantial prejudice or adverse reliance that would make it unfair to proceed.

The respondent's motion to dismiss was denied, though the Board noted the delay could affect the ultimate remedy and the assessment of the complaint's merits.

The intervener challenged the applicant union's membership evidence in a certification application, alleging that two employees did not pay the required one dollar initiation fee.

The Board found that one employee did not pay the fee, invalidating his card, but concluded the collector's error was innocent rather than deliberate.

The Board accepted the remaining membership evidence, finding the applicant met the 35% threshold required for a pre-hearing representation vote, and directed that the sealed ballots be counted.

The complainant building trade unions alleged a violation of a consent access order by the respondents.

The respondents argued the order was spent.

The Board found a bona fide justification for the unions' continued need for access to the property to persuade employees to join, particularly given a competing certification application by the Steelworkers.

The Board declined to read a temporal limitation into the access order and declared it continued in effect until a vote is held or the certification applications are determined.

The complainants alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation and violated voting procedures under the Labour Relations Act during a contract ratification meeting.

The union presented a combined ballot asking employees to either accept the company's final offer or authorize a strike, and refused requests to split the ballot.

The Board found that the union was entitled to structure the ballot to reflect the collective bargaining reality and bring negotiations to a head.

The Board also dismissed allegations of intimidation and found that, despite defects in the notice of the meeting, no employees were deprived of the opportunity to vote.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant trade union alleged that the respondent security company, acting on behalf of the struck employer, committed unfair labour practices by planting an undercover investigator within the bargaining unit during a lengthy strike.

The investigator posed as a striking employee, reported to the employer on union bargaining strategy and internal dissension, fostered dissent among the strikers, and engaged in unlawful acts on the picket line.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the respondent's actions constituted a flagrant violation of section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by interfering with the administration of the trade union and the representation of employees.

The Board held that infiltrating a trade union during or in anticipation of a strike is a per se violation of the Act.

The Board ordered the respondent to compensate the union for half of the wages and strike pay lost due to the five-week prolongation of the strike caused by its actions, and to provide written notice of its violation to any trade union it is retained to act against in the future.

During a union certification application, the employer alleged that an employee had signed a union membership card without paying the required $1.00 initiation fee.

The Board held a hearing to assess the credibility of the employee and the union collector.

The Board preferred the evidence of the union collector, finding that the employee had indeed paid the $1.00 fee.

The union's documentary evidence was found to comply with the Labour Relations Act.

The appellant lost his employment due to a strike and subsequently found secondary employment working three days a week at a hospital.

He left the hospital job for medical reasons and applied for unemployment insurance benefits.

The Commission denied benefits under s. 44(1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, arguing he was not 'regularly engaged in some other occupation' because he intended to return to his original employer after the strike.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that 'regularly engaged' refers to the regularity of the work schedule, not the duration or permanence of the employment.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was entitled to benefits.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by prohibiting on-the-job political canvassing by union members on company property during non-working hours.

The canvassing was in support of the Canadian Labour Congress and the New Democratic Party during a federal by-election.

The Board dismissed the complaint, holding that while the activity may be lawful, it is too remotely connected to the dominant purpose of the Act—collective bargaining—to be protected as a statutory right.

The Board found that the communications were aimed at employees as voters rather than as employees, and thus the employer's prohibition did not violate the Act.