David Wynne Wright

The union brought an application alleging a sale of a business and an unfair labour practice complaint against the responding party, a nursing services provider.

The community care access centre (CCAC) had contracted out 98% of its nursing services to the responding party.

The union argued this constituted a transfer of a part of the CCAC's business.

The Board found that the arrangement was a subcontracting of work, not a transfer of a business, as the responding party was a pre-existing business with its own infrastructure, management, and personnel, and no assets or economic organization were transferred from the CCAC.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant union (OPSEU) applied for certification to represent paramedics employed by the Regional Municipality of York.

The Region and the intervenor union (CUPE) argued the application was untimely because the paramedics were already covered by an existing collective agreement or a valid voluntary recognition agreement between them.

The Board found that the agreement to expand the existing CUPE bargaining unit to include the newly hired paramedics constituted a valid voluntary recognition agreement.

Declining to follow earlier Board jurisprudence, the Board held that the union only needed majority support in the overall expanded bargaining unit, not the specific add-on group.

As CUPE had majority support in the overall unit, the agreement was valid and barred OPSEU's application.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit consisting of attendant care workers, but excluding those in the outreach program.

The responding employer objected, arguing that the exclusion of outreach workers made the unit inappropriate.

The Board agreed with the employer, finding that the proposed unit would lead to undue fragmentation in a relatively small workplace.

The Board noted that the terms and conditions of employment, management structure, and work performed were essentially the same for both included and excluded workers.

The Board directed that the segregated ballots of the outreach workers be counted.

OPSEU and individual former Crown employees filed applications alleging that the responding municipalities violated O. Reg. 10/99 by failing to properly credit their seniority after they were transferred to municipal employment.

The intervenor union (CUPE) and the responding municipalities raised preliminary objections regarding the Board's jurisdiction and the applicants' standing.

The Board held that it lacked inherent jurisdiction to enforce the regulation directly, as the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act does not provide a mechanism for individual employees or their former bargaining agent to apply to the Board for such redress.

The applications were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The parties agreed to a consent award resolving policy grievances related to the transfer of governance of psychiatric hospitals.

The settlement sets out the process for transferring personnel, WSIB, and employee health files, including employees' rights to review and request removal of documents from their files prior to transfer.

The Vice-Chair remained seized of any disputes regarding the completeness of the transfer agreements.

The applicant employees filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.

The responding party union objected on the basis that the application was untimely under section 67(3)(a) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, because a lawful strike was ongoing.

Although a memorandum of agreement had been signed and most employees had returned to work, 20 employees remained off work pursuant to the strike on the application date.

The Board found that a strike was still in effect and that the statute does not require a complete cessation of work or disruption for a strike to continue.

The Board dismissed the application as untimely.

The applicant employees filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.

The responding union objected on the basis that the application was untimely under section 67(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A vote was held and the ballot box was sealed.

Following a hearing, the Board orally dismissed the application as untimely and directed that the ballots be destroyed without being counted.

Written reasons were to follow.

The union sought access to documentation in the Data Room referred to in the Request for Proposals for the Central North Correctional Centre.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the union be granted access to review specific documents, including the classification system description, food services details, and performance frameworks.

The order stipulated that union counsel must maintain possession of all copies, destroy working copies at the close of the hearing, and use the documentation solely for the litigation of the grievance.

The Board of Inquiry reconvened to address outstanding issues regarding the implementation of its previous orders concerning workplace harassment and discrimination.

The complainant alleged further acts of reprisal and a continued poisoned environment.

The Board ruled that compensation must include a gross-up for income tax purposes to satisfy the principle of restitutio in integrum.

Furthermore, the Board determined it retained jurisdiction to hear evidence of continued discrimination and reprisals related to the implementation of its orders, distinguishing its remedial role from disciplinary proceedings.

Following a hospital restructuring, the successor employer and one union sought a single comprehensive bargaining unit for all service and office/clerical employees.

Two other unions argued for maintaining separate bargaining units for service employees and office/clerical employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that two separate bargaining units were appropriate.

The Board held that while a single unit might be appropriate, the existing separate units had been effective and there was no evidence of labour relations difficulties.

Maintaining the separate units would cause the least disruption to the existing pattern of collective bargaining and was consistent with the purposes of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act.

The applicant hospital, a successor hospital following an amalgamation, applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 for a determination of the number and descriptions of bargaining units.

The Board determined that there should be seven bargaining units spanning all three hospital sites.

The Board maintained separate units for stationary engineers, McLean House employees, office and clerical employees, and service employees, but combined part-time and full-time employees into single units for each category.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a bottom-line decision regarding the restructuring of bargaining units at the newly amalgamated City of Kingston under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The Board directed the preservation of the ONA nurses' unit and a separate utilities unit represented by the IBEW.

Transit workers represented by the CAW were folded into a broader all-employee unit proposed by CUPE.

The Board also defined the firefighters' unit and directed the parties to finalize the remaining bargaining unit descriptions with the assistance of a Board Officer.

Following the merger of two hospitals, the applicant hospital applied under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking a declaration that intermingling of employees had occurred and requesting the restructuring of multiple bargaining units into two units, along with representation votes.

The responding trade unions opposed the application, arguing that the transfer of employees did not constitute intermingling and that the hospital's actions were not bona fide.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that intermingling had occurred due to the integration of the hospitals and the regular movement of staff between sites, which caused significant operational and labour relations difficulties.

The Board exercised its discretion to combine the existing bargaining units into a paramedical unit and a service/clerical unit, and ordered representation votes to determine the bargaining agents for the newly structured units.

The applicant union (OPSEU) filed a work assignment dispute under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, challenging the Hospital's decision to reassign respiratory and cardiac testing work from Cardio-Pulmonary Technicians to Registered Nurses and SEIU members.

The Hospital argued the transfer to a 'point of care' model would improve efficiency and patient care.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the Hospital's decision was made for bona fide operational reasons and that the OPSEU collective agreement did not expressly prohibit the transfer of work out of the bargaining unit.

The Perth and Smiths Falls District Hospital applied under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act to merge certain bargaining units following the amalgamation of the Smiths Falls Community Hospital and the Great War Memorial Hospital.

The Hospital argued that the merger resulted in an intermingling of employees, justifying the consolidation of bargaining units represented by CUPE, OPSEU, and ICTU.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that while services and management had been integrated, there was no significant intermingling of employees or transfer of job opportunities between the two locations that would call into question the logic of the existing bargaining structures.

The applicant union brought an application under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act concerning the rationalization of rehabilitation services among three hospitals.

The rationalization involved transferring services and employees to a consolidated centre at the responding party hospital, constituting a sale of a business.

The primary issue was whether the seniority of incoming employees should be dovetailed or end-tailed into the existing bargaining unit's seniority list.

The Board found that an intermingling of employees had occurred despite the physical transfers not yet being complete.

The Board ordered that the seniority lists be dovetailed, recognizing the incoming employees' accrued seniority in full, as it provided the most equitable reconciliation of interests and facilitated the rationalization process.

The applicant union sought interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to prohibit the employer from relocating planing mill operations to a sawmill facility, or alternatively, an order assigning the planing work to its members pending the disposition of related unfair labour practice and work assignment complaints.

The employer planned to consolidate operations, taking the position that the relocated work would fall under the respondent union's collective agreement.

The Board found an arguable case for the work assignment but concluded the balance of harm did not favour granting interim relief, as the applicant did not challenge the employer's right to transfer operations and a temporary reassignment of work would cause equal prejudice to the respondent union.

The application for interim relief was dismissed.

In a displacement application for certification, the applicant union sought to represent a single comprehensive bargaining unit combining the incumbent union's separate full-time and part-time units.

The Board found that the incumbent held bargaining rights for two separate units, but concluded that the applicant's proposed combined unit was appropriate for collective bargaining due to the interconnected nature of the existing collective agreements.

The Board also ruled that probationary employees were included in the bargaining units and entitled to vote.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the employer's manufacturing plant.

The employer argued that the appropriate unit should include employees at both its plant and its distribution yard, located 1.8 kilometres away, asserting that a plant-only unit would cause serious labour relations problems due to employee interchange and operational interdependence.

The Board found that the level of employee interchange was not significant or regular enough to cause serious labour relations problems if restricted.

The Board determined that the plant-only unit was appropriate and, finding that more than 55 percent of the employees in the unit were members of the union, ordered that a certificate issue.

The applicant local union sought interim relief in connection with an unfair labour practice complaint, requesting an order directing the respondent employer to remit union dues to the local's officers rather than the trustee appointed by the parent union.

The local had purportedly disaffiliated from the parent union, which responded by placing the local under trusteeship.

The employer, caught in the middle, placed the dues in trust.

The Board dismissed the application for interim relief, finding that the local had not made out an arguable case that the trusteeship or the employer's neutral stance constituted an unfair labour practice, and that the Board should not use its interim powers to confirm a dubious disaffiliation process.