10 total
Related employer declaration denied to avoid conflict with established bargaining rights of another union.
The applicant unions sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act to bind Delform Construction Limited and Ilena Construction Limited to the provincial ICI agreement binding Hardrock Forming Company.
The Board found that Delform had an established collective bargaining relationship with Labourers' Local 183.
The Board dismissed the application, reasoning that issuing a related employer declaration would create a conflict with Local 183's established bargaining rights and precipitate a jurisdictional dispute.
Board orders union to cease picketing that encouraged an unlawful strike, rejecting Charter freedom of expression defence.
The applicant employer sought a cease and desist order against the respondent union and its official for establishing a picket line at a construction site over a jurisdictional dispute.
The applicant argued the picketing was intended to induce an unlawful sympathy strike by other trades.
The respondents claimed the picketing was informational and protected by the freedom of expression guarantee under the Charter.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the picketing was a call to action intended to cause an unlawful strike, which is not protected by the Charter.
The Board issued declarations and directions ordering the respondents to cease and desist from picketing and encouraging an unlawful strike.
Board affirms jurisdiction to issue work assignment directions against persons other than the specific employer complained about.
The complainant union filed complaints under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding work assignments by the respondent employers to another union.
The complainant sought directions binding on other jobs and against respondents other than the specific employers complained about.
The Board held that the appropriateness of a direction binding on other jobs under section 91(2) is a matter for the merits hearing.
The Board also ruled that it has jurisdiction under section 91(1) to make directions against persons other than the party being complained about, leaving the application of this jurisdiction to the merits hearing.
Union's challenge to nursing home's contracting out of dietary and housekeeping services dismissed as bona fide.
The union brought applications under sections 1(4), 63, and 89 of the Labour Relations Act challenging the bona fides of Caressant Care's contracting out of dietary and housekeeping services to Versa Services at a new nursing home.
The Board found the arrangement to be a genuine, arm's-length contracting out where Versa Services assumed true control and responsibility for the selection, training, and supervision of the employees.
As the employer relinquished control over the performance of the work and employment relations, the Board dismissed the applications and complaint.
Transfer of nursing home licence constitutes a sale of a business; representation vote ordered due to intermingling.
The union brought an application for a declaration of a successor employer and an unfair labour practice complaint following the transfer of a nursing home licence from an insolvent operator, through a receiver-manager, to Caressant Care.
The Board found that the transfer of the licence constituted a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.
The Board also determined that Caressant Care was the true employer during the interim management period.
However, the Board dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint, finding no improper motive in Caressant Care's offer of part-time employment to the former employees.
Due to the intermingling of employees from the unionized and non-unionized operations, the Board ordered a representation vote.
Related employer and sale of business applications adjourned due to union's failure to provide proper notice.
The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act and subsequently sought to add related employer and sale of business applications under sections 1(4) and 63 by way of letter.
The respondents did not attend the hearing.
The Board adjourned the section 1(4) and section 63 applications, finding that the applicant's failure to file the proper forms meant that the required formal notices had not been given to the respondents or their employees.
Intervention in certification application dismissed as work jurisdiction claims do not confer standing.
The applicant union sought certification for a craft unit of ironworkers.
The intervener union claimed the application was untimely because the work performed by the ironworkers was covered by its own provincial agreement.
The Board held that certification proceedings are not the appropriate forum for resolving work jurisdiction disputes.
As the intervener did not claim to represent any employees in the proposed bargaining unit, it lacked status to intervene or request an adjournment.
The intervention was dismissed.
Appointment of a court-appointed receiver and manager does not constitute a sale of a business.
The applicant union alleged that the appointment of a court-appointed receiver and manager of a nursing home constituted a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, making the receiver and the secured creditor successor employers.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that a receiver and manager merely acts as an officer of the court to manage the business on behalf of creditors, and no disposition or transfer of the business occurred until the assets were subsequently sold to a third-party purchaser.
Privately appointed receiver is not a successor employer but is liable for union dues during winding down.
The union brought an application under section 63 and a complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act against two banks and their privately appointed receivers following the insolvency of Windsor Packing Company Limited.
The union argued that the receivers were successor employers and were liable for unpaid union dues and other collective agreement obligations.
The Board held that the private appointment of a receiver-manager does not constitute a sale or transfer of a business under section 63.
However, the Board found that the receiver, acting as an agent of the insolvent company, violated section 64 by failing to deduct and remit union dues and ignoring the collective agreement while employing bargaining unit members to wind down operations.
The receiver was ordered to pay the union dues for the period it acted as the employer.
Board has jurisdiction to hear sale of business application involving court-appointed receiver without court leave.
The applicant union filed an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act alleging a sale of a business by Chateau Gardens to the respondents, a court-appointed receiver and a secured creditor.
The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant had not obtained leave of the Supreme Court of Ontario, as required by the receiving order.
The Board held that it had exclusive jurisdiction under sections 106(1) and 108 of the Act, and that requiring leave of the court would constitute an impermissible questioning or restraining of the Board's proceedings.
The Board dismissed the preliminary objection and directed the matter to be listed for a hearing on the merits.
