Craig Flood

The parties agreed to adjourn the scheduled hearing and entered into a consent order requiring the responding party to produce specific documentation at the rescheduled hearing.

The Board issued directions incorporating the terms of the parties' agreement, including a requirement to meet and review the relevant documentation prior to the new hearing date.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, resulting in four votes in favour and six against, with three segregated ballots.

One segregated ballot belonged to an interested party whose employment status was disputed.

A hearing was scheduled to hear her representations, but she failed to attend.

The Board denied the union's request for an adjournment, ruled that the interested party's ballot would not be counted, and dismissed the application for certification as the union could not mathematically achieve the required majority even if the remaining segregated ballots were counted in its favour.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union, alleging it violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to pursue grievances regarding lost overtime and his subsequent layoff.

The applicant had been laid off after refusing to work a night shift upon returning from a workplace injury.

The union, after obtaining a legal opinion, concluded the grievance would not succeed at arbitration and withdrew it.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that even if the union's assessment of the grievance's merits was incorrect, its decision was considered, not flagrantly erroneous, and did not constitute arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.

The responding employers requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision that dismissed their motion to dismiss the union's related employer and sale of business applications for post-application delay.

The request was based on the union's failure to disclose a settlement agreement with certain responding parties, which the employers characterized as akin to a 'Mary Carter agreement'.

The Board found that while the agreement should have been disclosed, its existence would not have affected the Board's earlier decision regarding post-application delay.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against a registered nurse for allegedly striking a psychiatric patient and falsifying the patient's records to conceal the incident.

The Discipline Committee found that the College failed to prove the nurse deliberately struck the patient, as the contact may have been defensive.

However, the Committee found the nurse guilty of professional misconduct for deliberately falsifying clinical records and incident reports to hide his involvement in the altercation.

The nurse's certificate of registration was suspended for 15 months, with conditions for practice monitoring upon return to employment.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the employer discharged two union supporters and granted a wage increase during the statutory freeze period.

The Board found that the employer discharged the two employees primarily because of their support for the union, in breach of sections 70, 72, and 76 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board concluded that the employer's conduct was so invasive and destructive that a representation vote would not likely reflect the true wishes of the employees, and no other remedy would be sufficient to counter the effects of the contraventions.

The Board ordered automatic certification under section 11 of the Act and directed the employer to offer reinstatement and compensation to the discharged employees.

During a lawful strike by cleaning staff employed by Modern Building Cleaning at the Ontario Science Centre, the union alleged that both Modern and the Centre breached the replacement worker provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The Centre's management had picked up garbage, and Modern had introduced new cleaning machinery.

On preliminary objections, the Board dismissed the allegations against the Centre, finding no prima facie case that it acted 'on behalf of' Modern.

The Board also dismissed the allegation that introducing new machinery breached section 73.1, as the statute does not prohibit the use of machinery to perform struck work.

The remaining allegations regarding bargaining unit personnel performing struck work were allowed to proceed, after which the parties settled.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of hostel employees employed by the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

The intervener union argued the application should be dismissed because the applicant's constitution restricted membership to employees of the Crown, its agencies, or private employers, rendering municipal employees ineligible.

The Board found that the municipality was a public sector employer and not a 'private employer' within the meaning of the applicant's constitution.

As the applicant lacked an established practice of admitting persons outside its constitutional eligibility requirements, the application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant union brought related employer and sale of business applications, as well as a construction industry grievance, against several electrical contracting companies controlled by a single key principal.

The responding parties brought a preliminary motion alleging reasonable apprehension of bias because the panel had previously attempted to mediate the dispute at the parties' request.

The Board dismissed the bias motion, finding the parties had consented to the mediation-arbitration process.

On the merits, the Board found that the principal was the key person in all the companies, which were engaged in related activities under common control and direction.

The Board declared that a sale of business had occurred and that the companies constituted one employer bound by the provincial collective agreement, but limited the retrospective effect of the declaration due to the union's delay.

The applicant union sought certification for a construction industry bargaining unit of labourers employed by the respondent property management company.

The respondent argued it was engaged in maintenance, not construction (repair) work, and thus the construction industry provisions did not apply.

The Board applied the Master Insulators test to distinguish maintenance from repair work.

It found that while work at one parking garage was preventative maintenance, the extensive concrete demolition and resurfacing at a second garage constituted repair and therefore construction work.

As the respondent employed persons to perform construction work on the application date, the Board granted the application and issued a certificate.

The applicant employee filed an application to terminate the union's bargaining rights in the ICI sector.

The union argued the application should be dismissed because the applicant and two other employees were hired in violation of the collective agreement's hiring hall provisions and thus were not 'employees in the bargaining unit' under section 57(2) of the Labour Relations Act, relying on the April Waterproofing principle.

The Board found that while the employer technically violated the collective agreement by recalling the long-service employees without contacting the union hall, this did not exhibit the 'mischief' the April Waterproofing principle was designed to prevent.

The employer did not artificially pad the list or hire persons to foster a termination application.

The Board directed a representation vote.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its certification applications after meetings with a Labour Relations Officer had commenced and after the respondent employer raised 'non-pay' allegations regarding the union's membership evidence.

The employer argued the applications should be dismissed and the non-pay allegations adjudicated.

The Board declined to adjudicate the non-pay allegations in the context of a withdrawn application.

However, interpreting its Practice Note No. 7 in light of recent procedural changes, the Board held that a request to withdraw made after a Labour Relations Officer has met with the parties should result in the dismissal of the applications.

The applications were accordingly dismissed.

The applicants sought declarations terminating bargaining rights.

At the hearing, the Board raised concerns regarding the named respondents, sufficiency of notice, and bargaining unit descriptions, noting that affiliated bargaining agents had not been named or served.

The parties agreed to adjourn the hearing to allow the applicants to name and serve the appropriate parties, without prejudice to the respondents' right to argue the applications were void ab initio.

The Board adjourned the hearing and directed that related unfair labour practice and grievance files be scheduled to be heard together with these applications.

The applicant union sought certification for a unit of painters employed by the respondent in the construction industry.

The Board determined the composition of the bargaining unit, finding that one disputed employee was a painter while another was a labourer.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing the certification.

However, the Board found that the petition was circulated by a working foreman with supervisory responsibilities, during working hours, and with the tacit approval and proximity of the employer's owner.

Consequently, the Board concluded the petition did not represent a voluntary change of heart and declined to order a representation vote.

The Board also excluded one of the employee representatives from the hearing due to disruptive behaviour.

Certificates were issued to the union.