Christopher M. Dassios

The applicant brought an application against the responding party union, with the employer intervening.

Having regard to the Minutes of Settlement reached between the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

Three complainants alleged that the respondent landlords discriminated against them by using minimum income criteria and rent-to-income ratios to deny them rental accommodation.

The Ontario Board of Inquiry found that the use of these criteria constitutes adverse effect discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status, family status, age, citizenship, place of origin, and receipt of public assistance.

The Board held that the landlords failed to establish that the income criteria were reasonable and bona fide, as there was no empirical evidence showing that rent-to-income ratios accurately predict a tenant's likelihood of defaulting on rent.

The Board ordered the landlords to cease using income criteria and awarded general and specific damages to the complainants.

The applicants, two construction trade unions, applied for certification to represent their respective trades in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector and all other sectors of the construction industry in Board Area 3.

The parties disagreed on the appropriate bargaining unit descriptions, particularly regarding the exclusion of pre-existing bargaining rights held by the Power Workers' Union (PWU) and the applicants' own rights in the electrical power systems sector.

The Board determined that the electrical power systems sector bargaining rights should be excluded by reference to the specific collective agreements rather than the sector itself.

The Board found the Labourers' proposed bargaining unit appropriate with slight amendments, but rejected the U.A.'s proposed unit because it inappropriately sought to incorporate a jurisdictional accord that the employer had not agreed to.

In an application for certification by IBEW Local 1687, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined preliminary issues regarding standing and procedure.

The Board held that the Power Workers' Union (PWU) did not have standing to intervene, as its membership evidence did not confer representational authorization for this proceeding and it had not previously asserted bargaining rights over the affected employees.

The Board also declined to count the ballots from a prior representation vote, finding the results would not be dispositive of any remaining issues.

Finally, the Board established the order for determining the remaining issues, starting with whether a Letter of Understanding constituted a collective agreement bar.

Appeals concerning whether labour relations at a provincially owned utility's nuclear generating stations were governed by provincial or federal labour legislation.

The majority held that Parliament's declaratory power under s. 92(10)(c) and s. 91(29) validly brought the nuclear facilities within exclusive federal jurisdiction, and that labour relations were integral to the operation and management of those declared works.

A majority also held that atomic energy is a matter of national concern under the peace, order and good government power, and that labour relations at the nuclear facilities formed part of that jurisdiction.

The argument that provincial authority over electrical generation under s. 92A(1)(c) displaced federal authority was rejected.

The appeals were dismissed and the Canada Labour Code was held to apply to employees employed on or in connection with the nuclear facilities.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent hospital violated the statutory freeze period under section 81(2) of the Labour Relations Act by freezing the anniversary increments of non-unionized employees after the union applied for certification.

The respondent argued that the freeze was part of a broader response to funding constraints and applied to all non-unionized employees, consistent with its past practice of treating all such employees alike.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the respondent's actions maintained the established pattern of operations and fell within the reasonable expectations of employees given the economic circumstances.

A dissenting member would have found a violation, arguing the established pattern was the regular granting of the increments.

The applicant employer applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the union failed to give notice to bargain within sixty days following certification.

The union explained the delay was due to staffing difficulties at its regional office and that notice was served shortly after the application was filed.

The Board dismissed the application, finding the delay was not lengthy, resulted from inadvertence rather than an intention to sleep on rights, and did not cause prejudice to the employer.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of registered and graduate nurses, seeking to carve them out from an existing all-employee bargaining unit represented by the incumbent union.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act to permit the carve-out, finding no evidence that the incumbent union had failed to adequately represent the nurses and noting that the nurses had received a 48% pay increase over the period of representation.

The application was dismissed.

The union filed an application for certification before the Ontario Labour Relations Board relating to employees at the appellant's chicken hatchery.

The appellant argued the employees were agricultural workers excluded from the Labour Relations Act under s. 2(b).

The union gave notice it would challenge s. 2(b) under the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that an administrative tribunal with the power to decide questions of law has the concomitant power to determine whether that law is constitutionally valid under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Board therefore had jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of s. 2(b) of its enabling statute.

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation applied for certification to represent a unit of psychologists, social workers, and other professionals employed by the Board of Education for the City of York, displacing the incumbent union.

The incumbent argued the applicant's constitution did not permit these employees into membership.

The Board found the applicant had an established practice of admitting such persons, satisfying the Labour Relations Act.

As the applicant demonstrated sufficient membership support, the Board ordered a representation vote between the applicant and the incumbent union.