David Ian Wakely

The complainant union alleged that the respondent hospital committed an unfair labour practice by filing a professional misconduct complaint against the local union president with the College of Nurses.

The union president had made inaccurate public statements at a press conference linking a patient's death to understaffing in the intensive care unit.

The Board found that the union president's statements, though inaccurate, were made without malice and constituted protected trade union activity under the Labour Relations Act.

However, the Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the hospital lacked anti-union animus and held a genuine belief that the statements constituted professional misconduct when it reported her to the College.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry, seeking two bargaining units: one for carpenters under section 131a(1) of the Labour Relations Act, and a second for labourers and bricklayers under section 6(1).

The Board held that section 131a deals with all applications for certification in the construction industry, and any finding of an appropriate unit under section 6(1) must be made within the confines of section 131a.

Because labourers and bricklayers would not be covered by the provincial agreement relating to carpenters, they were not appropriate for inclusion in the unit.

The Board limited the appropriate unit to carpenters and carpenters' apprentices.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent nursing home violated the Labour Relations Act by laying off its housekeeping and janitorial employees and contracting out their work.

The union argued the employer bargained in bad faith by failing to disclose this intention during negotiations and that the contracting out was motivated by anti-union animus to avoid the economic impact of the collective agreement.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer had no intention to contract out when the agreement was signed.

Furthermore, the Board held that the decision to contract out was a legitimate business decision motivated solely by a desire to save money, not by anti-union animus, and was permitted under the management rights clause of the collective agreement.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the respondent was a successor employer to the predecessor company under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively, that they were related employers under section 1(4).

The predecessor's business had been placed in receivership, and the respondent subsequently leased the premises, purchased equipment, hired former employees, and temporarily manufactured the predecessor's product line under the predecessor's trade name before transitioning to safety footwear.

The Board found that a sale of a business had occurred within the meaning of section 55.

The Board declined to terminate the union's bargaining rights under section 55(5), finding that the change from casual to safety footwear did not constitute a substantial change in the character of the business.

The section 1(4) application was dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed statements of desire opposing the union.

The Board inquired into the origination and circulation of the petitions.

The Board found that the employer had laid off two employees to convey the consequences of supporting the union, and that the employee circulating the petitions was perceived as speaking for management.

Consequently, the Board held that the petitions were not voluntary and did not cast doubt on the union's membership evidence.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.