B. Shell

During a hearing regarding allegations of bad faith bargaining, the company's counsel sought to use a court reporter to record the proceedings.

The union objected, arguing it diminished the Board's control and prejudiced the union.

The Board ruled that the company could use a court reporter, but the transcript would not be the official record.

The Board further ordered that if the company's counsel intended to refer to the transcript during the hearing, they must notify the other parties and provide copies to the union and the Board at the union's and company's respective expenses.

The complainant alleged age discrimination against his employer and union because a pre-retirement vacation provision in the collective agreement granted extra vacation time only to employees aged 61 and over with 25 years of service.

The complainant had the required service but was not 61.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the provision constituted direct age discrimination, it was protected under section 13(1) of the Human Rights Code as a special program designed to relieve the hardship older workers face when transitioning to retirement.

The complaint was dismissed.

The respondents in several certification applications brought a motion to postpone the Board's hearing of a Charter challenge to section 12 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondents argued the hearing should be adjourned pending the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Cuddy Chicks, which would determine the Board's jurisdiction to hear Charter issues.

The Board denied the requested postponement, emphasizing the importance of expedition in labour relations matters and noting that the current state of the law recognized the Board as a court of competent jurisdiction capable of applying the Charter.

The applicant employer sought to alter the descriptions of conflicting bargaining units in collective agreements with two different unions under section 91(18) of the Labour Relations Act.

One union argued the Board should defer to arbitration.

The Board held that section 91(18) is a separate charging section designed to resolve representational disputes arising from conflicting bargaining unit descriptions in industrial-type collective agreements.

The Board declined to defer to arbitration because an arbitration board could not provide the requested relief of altering the bargaining unit descriptions, and decided to entertain the application.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging that the employer's decision to lay off seven employees shortly after the union's organizing campaign was motivated by anti-union animus.

The employer contended the lay-offs were strictly due to a severe seasonal downturn in its aluminum extrusion business and the cancellation of major orders.

The Board found the employer's witnesses credible and supported by statistical evidence, concluding the lay-offs were motivated solely by bona fide business considerations.

The unfair labour practice complaint was dismissed, but the Board ordered a representation vote for the certification application.