Chris G. Paliare

The applicant union filed an application for certification to displace the intervener union.

The intervener requested that the Board dismiss the application under section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act because a previous application by the applicant had been dismissed.

The Board noted that the previous application was dismissed due to a technical defect—the failure to file a Form 9 declaration—and that no assessment of employee wishes had occurred.

Balancing the competing interests, the Board declined to impose a bar and dismissed the intervener's motion.

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation (OSSTF) applied for certification to represent occasional teachers employed by the respondent board of education.

The respondent and the intervener union argued that OSSTF was not a trade union under the Labour Relations Act because its membership included principals and vice-principals who exercised managerial functions.

The Board held that OSSTF is a trade union, finding that the inclusion of managerial members does not disqualify an organization from being a trade union, especially given the statutory inclusion of principals in teacher bargaining units under other legislation.

The Board also established a new test for determining the composition of the bargaining unit for occasional teachers, rejecting the traditional 30/30-day rule in favour of a broader test including those actively at work on the application date or who had worked at least one day in the preceding twelve months.

Finally, the Board directed the employer to provide a list of employee names and addresses to facilitate a fair representation vote.

The complainant national union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the respondent employer contravened section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to bargain exclusively with a trustee appointed by the national union.

The local union had voted to disaffiliate and challenged the trusteeship's validity.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding the employer was willing to bargain in good faith but was thwarted by the internal union dispute over bargaining rights, and was not using the dispute as a pretext to avoid its obligations.

The union applied for certification of a single bargaining unit comprising office, clerical, technical, and food services employees at Ryerson Polytechnical Institute.

The employer argued for three separate units dividing career and non-career employees, and sought to exclude employees funded by special projects.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that a single, comprehensive bargaining unit was appropriate, finding a shared community of interest among career and long-term non-career employees and emphasizing the Board's aversion to fragmented bargaining structures.

The Board also refused to exclude special project employees, noting the source of funding does not negate their right to collective bargaining.

The complainant union alleged that the respondents violated section 146 of the Labour Relations Act by entering into an agreement or arrangement for concrete forming work in the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector that was contrary to the provincial collective agreement.

The respondent union brought a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that its relationship with the employer association was specifically exempted from the employee bargaining agency designation by the Minister of Labour under section 139 of the Act.

The Board agreed, finding that the exclusion in the designation meant the employees were not represented by affiliated bargaining agents for the purpose of section 146(2).

The complaint was dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie violation of the Act.

The complainant union alleged that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by laying off five employees because they supported the union's certification application.

The employer contended the lay offs were for bona fide business reasons due to a lack of work.

Applying the reverse onus under section 89(5) of the Act, the Board found the employer provided a credible explanation that the lay offs were strictly for business reasons and untainted by anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of occasional teachers.

Following a representation vote in which the union was successful, a group of objecting employees sought to have the vote set aside.

The objectors argued that a clerical error in the street address on the Notice of Taking of Vote, the use of segregated ballots, and the application of the Board's thirty-day rule compromised the vote.

The Board dismissed the objections, finding no evidence that the address error prevented anyone from voting or that the segregation of ballots departed from usual practice.

The Board declined to direct a new vote and ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant union brought an application under the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act regarding the purported transfer of a Crown-operated facility to the private sector.

At the hearing, the respondent Crown submitted that the application was premature as no legal entity had yet been created to receive the transfer.

The parties agreed to adjourn the matter sine die until the transaction crystallized.

The applicant also requested the Board to seek a Court order enforcing a subpoena against a witness who failed to attend.

The Board declined, noting that under section 12 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, it is generally the responsibility of the party seeking the witness's attendance to pursue enforcement.

The application was adjourned for up to one year.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent school board committed an unfair labour practice by distributing a circular to occasional teachers during an organizing campaign.

The circular stated that union solicitation should not take place on school premises during the school day and warned of discipline for such conduct.

A subsequent circular clarified that employees could discuss union membership on their own time.

The majority of the Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer's communications were a valid exercise of its right to maintain order and prevent disruption of the educational program, and did not violate the Labour Relations Act.

A dissenting member would have found an unfair labour practice and ordered a remedial posting.

The applicant union sought certification for a single bargaining unit of all occasional teachers employed by the respondent board of education.

The respondent argued for four separate units, dividing teachers by elementary/secondary panels and by short-term/long-term assignments.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rejected the short-term/long-term division, finding it would cause undue fragmentation given the fluid nature of occasional teaching assignments.

However, the Board accepted the division between elementary and secondary panels, citing historical dichotomies, different qualifications, and distinct bargaining priorities.

The Board also determined that its standard 'thirty day rule' would apply to calculate the number of employees in the bargaining units at the time of the application.

The complainants, security guards at the University of Toronto, alleged that their union breached section 68 of the Labour Relations Act (duty of fair representation) during collective bargaining.

They claimed the union bargaining committee intentionally misled them about a new requirement for medical examinations and failed to secure a promised provision regarding lieu days.

The Board found that the union representatives acted in good faith and that any failure to mention the medical examination requirement during the ratification meeting was due to honest inadvertence, not intentional misrepresentation.

The Board concluded that the union's conduct, while perhaps unwise in some respects, was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union sought to set aside a representation vote, alleging that the intervener union made misleading statements to employees regarding the potential loss of jobs and changes to the bargaining unit scope if the applicant were certified.

The Board found that the statements made by the intervener's president were within the permissible bounds of electioneering and did not amount to campaign trickery that would impair the employees' ability to express their true wishes.

The application for certification was dismissed as the applicant did not receive majority support.

The union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the employer failed to recognize the grievor as a Union Steward and discharged him without just cause.

The employer argued the grievor was discharged for insubordination and that the union was estopped from appointing him as a steward.

The Board found no insubordination and held the discharge was without just cause, ordering reinstatement with compensation.

However, the Board applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel, finding the union had represented it would not appoint a new employee as a steward, and therefore was estopped from appointing the grievor to that role.

The applicant union filed a complaint regarding a work assignment dispute over the installation of boiler systems at a generating station.

The respondent employer and union argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 91(14) of the Labour Relations Act because the parties' collective agreements required such disputes to be referred to the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board (IJDB).

The applicant contended the IJDB was no longer functioning.

The Board found that the IJDB procedures were still operative and that the parties were bound by them.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint and terminated the proceedings.

The applicant sought certification to represent employees of the respondent and had to establish its status as a trade union under section 1(1)(p) of the Labour Relations Act.

The intervener argued that the applicant was not a valid trade union because it had not properly admitted members or elected a full slate of officers as required by its constitution.

The Board reviewed the steps taken by the applicant, including drafting and approving a constitution, admitting members, and electing four key officers by acclamation.

The Board found that despite not electing the five Executive Council Members, the applicant was a viable organization capable of carrying out its purposes.

The Board concluded that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Act and directed the matter to be listed for continuation of the hearing.

The complainant union alleged that the employer, Coulter Copper & Brass Limited, and its interim receiver violated section 14 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to sign a formal collective agreement.

The parties had previously signed a Memorandum of Settlement which was subsequently ratified by the union.

Shortly after ratification, the employer went into receivership, and the interim receiver instructed the employer not to sign the formal agreement to avoid creating a fraudulent preference.

The Board found that a collective agreement came into existence upon the union's communication of ratification.

The Board held that the refusal to execute the formal document reflecting the agreed terms constituted a breach of the duty to bargain in good faith, and ordered the respondents to sign the agreement.

The applicant union applied under section 5 of The Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act, 1977, seeking a declaration that it is the sole bargaining agent for employees of the respondent municipality following the transfer of water and sewage treatment plants from the Province.

The intervener union argued that the transfer was not complete pending Ontario Municipal Board approval and sought to preserve a separate bargaining unit for the transferred employees.

The Board found that a transfer of functions had occurred and that the employees had been substantially intermingled.

Given the overwhelming majority of employees already represented by the applicant union and the labour relations difficulties of fragmenting the bargaining structure, the Board declared the applicant union the bargaining agent for the merged unit and terminated the intervener's bargaining rights without a representation vote.

The applicant trade union applied for a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Trans-Nation Incorporated and Valentine Enterprises Contracting constituted one employer.

While the Board assumed the two entities were under common control or direction, it found they were not carrying on associated or related activities.

Trans-Nation was engaged in acquiring and refurbishing commercial buildings, whereas Valentine performed sewer and watermain work.

The Board concluded the businesses did not serve the same market or employ the same mode of production.

The application was dismissed, with one Board Member dissenting.

The applicant union sought certification for employees of the respondent, a non-profit social service organization for Metis and non-status Indians.

The respondent argued that its operations fell under federal jurisdiction pursuant to section 91(24) of the British North America Act because its members and beneficiaries were 'Indians' and its activities were of a federal character.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the respondent's operations did not constitute a federal undertaking or business, as they lacked a sufficient connection to Indian lands, the administration of reserves, or the exercise of rights under the Indian Act.

The Board concluded that provincial labour relations legislation applied and granted the certificate.

The complainant alleged that the respondent unions violated the Labour Relations Act by refusing his union dues, removing him from the out-of-work list, and subsequently filing internal union charges against him.

The Board found that the union officials acted arbitrarily and in bad faith by filing charges after an eight-month delay to remove the complainant's good standing status and eligibility for referral from the hiring hall.

The Board ordered the respondents to restore the complainant's good standing and compensate him for lost earnings opportunities.