Chris G. Paliare

The complainant sought compensation following an arbitration award that reinstated him without compensation, alleging a conflict of interest by the union's counsel.

At the hearing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the complainant's counsel requested an adjournment because the complainant was allegedly out of the jurisdiction.

The respondent and intervener opposed the adjournment, noting the complainant had been in Toronto just days prior.

The Board denied the adjournment request due to lack of direct knowledge by counsel and short notice.

As no evidence or representations were made regarding the compensation claim, the request for relief was dismissed.

Five employees filed a complaint alleging that the employer college violated section 55(1) of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act by implementing retroactive wage increases before a formal collective agreement was signed, while a complaint about the union's ratification vote was pending.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, holding that section 55(1) is designed to protect the bargaining rights of the trade union, which is the exclusive bargaining agent.

Consequently, individual employees lack standing to bring such a complaint without the union's consent.

The union applied for certification of employees at Family Services of Hamilton-Wentworth Inc. The parties disputed whether three employees who also served on the employer's Board of Directors should be excluded from the bargaining unit under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act for exercising managerial functions or acting in a confidential capacity.

The Board found that while the Board of Directors collectively exercises managerial functions, the employee-directors do not exercise independent managerial authority in their secondary role as directors, nor do they have regular, material involvement in confidential labour relations matters.

The Board concluded that the employee-directors are properly included in the bargaining unit.

The group of objectors requested the Board to reconsider its decision finding that statements of desire (petitions) opposing the union's certification were not voluntary.

The objectors argued the Board improperly relied on testimony from a witness who did not testify in the certification portion of the proceedings.

The Board determined it had jurisdiction to reconsider the matter itself without referring it to a new panel.

Upon reviewing the evidence afresh and explicitly excluding the impugned testimony, the Board concluded that the active involvement of management and the extensive petition-related activities of an employee during working hours created a perception of employer support.

The Board affirmed its original decision that the petitions were not voluntary.