Brian Shell

The applicant trade union applied for certification, demonstrating membership support of approximately 72 per cent of the bargaining unit.

The respondent employer and a group of objecting employees requested that the Board order a representation vote, alleging that the organizing campaign was characterized by a climate of intimidation, particularly affecting the large number of Vietnamese refugees in the workforce.

The Board heard evidence of isolated threats but found no pattern of intimidation related to the collection of membership evidence.

Declining to order a vote based on generalized cultural characteristics or surmise, the Board exercised its discretion to certify the union based on the unequivocal membership evidence.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The employer and a group of objecting employees challenged the initial certification, leading to a Divisional Court order remitting the matter to the Board.

The Board considered a statement of desire opposing the union and a counter-petition reaffirming union support.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to consider the counter-petition and that it was voluntary.

The Board held that the statement of desire was not a reliable indicator of voluntary employee wishes because the employer had suggested the name of the lawyer assisting the objecting employees.

Finding that over 55% of employees supported the union, the Board declined to order a representation vote and issued a certificate.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated the duty to bargain in good faith under the Labour Relations Act by unlawfully withdrawing an offer to continue COLA payments in order to avoid reaching a collective agreement.

The employer argued that its inexperienced negotiator made a mistake in conveying the company's position during conciliation, and that it promptly corrected the error once discovered.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer had made a genuine mistake and did not intend to continue the COLA payments, and that correcting the unaccepted offer did not constitute bad faith bargaining.

During a protracted strike, the union filed unfair labour practice complaints against the employer companies and a security company, alleging the security company provided an agent provocateur.

The union and the employers reached a settlement and the union sought to withdraw its complaint against the employers, but proceed against the security company.

The security company argued that as an agent, releasing the principal released it, relying on the common law doctrine of joint tortfeasors.

The Board rejected the application of the joint tortfeasor doctrine to the Labour Relations Act, finding that the security company was a 'person acting on behalf of an employer' and thus independently subject to the Act's prohibitions.

The Board allowed the withdrawal against the employers and directed the complaint against the security company to proceed.

The applicant union sought to set aside the results of a pre-hearing representation vote, arguing that the presence of the respondent employer's management personnel near the polling area intimidated voters.

The Board found that while it is preferable for management to absent themselves from the voting area, their mere presence, without evidence of electioneering, propagandizing, or other unfair labour practices, did not destroy the secrecy of the ballot or prevent employees from expressing their true wishes.

The application for certification was dismissed as the union failed to obtain more than fifty percent of the ballots cast.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a unit of foremen employed by the respondent.

The respondent argued that the foremen exercised managerial functions and were therefore excluded from the definition of 'employee' under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board examined the duties and responsibilities of the foremen, including their role in disciplining employees, responding to grievances, and assessing probationary employees.

The majority of the Board concluded that the foremen exercised true managerial functions and dismissed the application for certification.

One Board member dissented, finding the foremen's duties to be merely supervisory.