Cohn Morley

The applicant employer sought directions under section 92 of the Labour Relations Act, arguing that a collective agreement was in place after bargaining unit employees voted to accept the employer's final offer.

The union had conducted the vote but did not recommend acceptance and subsequently refused to sign the agreement, stating the offer was unacceptable to the union's executive.

The Board dismissed the applications, finding that a collective agreement is a contract between the employer and the union, not the employees.

Because the union had not agreed to be bound by the vote results and had not accepted the employer's offer, no collective agreement was in force.

The applicant employer sought a cease and desist direction against the respondent union and its officials for an alleged unlawful strike.

The employees had refused to work on a 'Sears job', claiming it was 'struck work' from a sister local's dispute, relying on a provision in their collective agreement that permitted such refusals.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the concerted refusal to work constituted an unlawful sympathetic strike under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ruled that parties cannot contract out of the statutory prohibition against mid-contract strikes, rendering the collective agreement's 'struck work' clause void as a defence to the unlawful strike application.

The Board issued declarations and directions to cease the unlawful activity.

During a union certification campaign, a pre-hearing representation vote was held and the ballot box was sealed due to allegations of improper campaign material distributed by the intervener union.

The applicant union alleged the material was false, misleading, and contained discriminatory caricatures, arguing for a second vote.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objections regarding timeliness and withdrawn allegations.

On the merits, the Board found the campaign material, while containing crude stereotypes, was typical campaign propaganda that would not impair the employees' freedom of choice.

The Board directed that the ballot box be opened and the vote counted.

The Ottawa Newspaper Guild applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of approximately 13 employees in the computer information services department of The Ottawa Citizen.

The employer opposed the application, arguing that a tag-end unit or a combined unit with the advertising department was appropriate.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employees in the computer information services department shared a sufficient community of interest to form a viable bargaining unit.

Given the employer's long history of fragmented, departmental bargaining units without serious labour relations difficulties, the Board concluded that the proposed departmental unit was appropriate and granted the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued several decisions regarding applications for certification and unfair labour practice complaints.

In the first case, the Board found that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act when three managers obtained signatures on a petition opposing the trade union.

The Board directed a representation vote and ordered remedial measures, including a posting and union access to employees.

Other decisions addressed the appropriate bargaining unit for a specialized business centre in a department store, a duty of fair representation complaint involving municipal technical employees, a sale of a business application concerning a retail food store, and the exclusion of a chemical control supervisor from a bargaining unit based on community of interest.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of full-time and part-time sales staff at the respondent's retail store.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit descriptions, except for the sales staff in the newly created Business Centre.

The respondent argued that the Business Centre staff should be excluded due to their specialized skills, distinct commission structure, and flexible hours.

The Board rejected this argument, noting its policy against fragmented, departmental bargaining units.

The Board found that the differences in working conditions were matters of degree and that the Business Centre staff shared sufficient community of interest with the broader sales unit.

Certificates were issued for the agreed-upon full-time and part-time units.