D. Jane Forbes-Roberts

The applicant union brought a motion requesting the Board to direct the respondents to comply with the duty imposed by sections 1(5) and 63(13) of the Labour Relations Act to adduce all material facts regarding successor rights and related employer allegations.

The respondents had tendered witnesses who could only provide hearsay evidence regarding the formation of the related entities.

The Board held that the tendering of hearsay evidence did not comply with its previous direction or the statutory onus, as the applicant is entitled to cross-examine on the direct considerations involved in the transactions.

The Board directed the respondents to tender direct evidence concerning the events leading up to the formation of the entities.

The applicant employer applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for relief under section 135 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging an unlawful strike.

The dispute arose over the fabrication of pipe support brackets, which the union believed violated the provincial collective agreement.

Union members, acting on instructions from their business manager, refused to install the brackets or hang pipe on them.

The Board found that this concerted refusal to work constituted an unlawful strike during the term of a collective agreement.

The Board issued a cease and desist direction against the union, its business manager, and the involved employees.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the statutory freeze period by denying work to bargaining unit employees and using managerial staff to perform their duties after an application for certification was filed.

The employer claimed a seasonal downturn in business but failed to produce documentary evidence to support this.

The Board drew an adverse inference against the employer and found a violation of the statutory freeze provisions.

The employer was ordered to compensate the affected employees for lost wages and benefits.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer failed to hire the grievor, a black carpenter, because of his race or colour, contrary to the collective agreement.

The grievor had repeatedly applied for work at a construction site and was told there was no work, but minutes later a white carpenter was hired.

The employer claimed the white carpenter was hired because the superintendent knew his work from a previous project.

The Board found the employer's explanation lacked credibility, noting inconsistencies in the superintendent's testimony and his failure to acknowledge the grievor's recent employment with the same employer.

The Board concluded that the refusal to hire was discriminatory and upheld the grievance, remaining seized of the remedy.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union 18 months after the arbitration hearing concerning his discharge.

The union and the intervener employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the delay.

The Board applied the criteria from the City of Mississauga decision and found that the delay was substantial and without compelling reason.

Given the potential prejudice to the union, particularly the fading recollection of the union representative who had disposed of his notes, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to inquire into the merits and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant union alleged that the respondents violated section 146 of the Labour Relations Act by entering into an agreement or arrangement for concrete forming work in the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector that was contrary to the provincial collective agreement.

The respondent union brought a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that its relationship with the employer association was specifically exempted from the employee bargaining agency designation by the Minister of Labour under section 139 of the Act.

The Board agreed, finding that the exclusion in the designation meant the employees were not represented by affiliated bargaining agents for the purpose of section 146(2).

The complaint was dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie violation of the Act.

The complainants alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation and violated voting procedures under the Labour Relations Act during a contract ratification meeting.

The union presented a combined ballot asking employees to either accept the company's final offer or authorize a strike, and refused requests to split the ballot.

The Board found that the union was entitled to structure the ballot to reflect the collective bargaining reality and bring negotiations to a head.

The Board also dismissed allegations of intimidation and found that, despite defects in the notice of the meeting, no employees were deprived of the opportunity to vote.

The complaint was dismissed.

The union applied for certification.

The employer alleged that the union used threats and undue influence to obtain membership evidence from two employees.

The Board found the union's witnesses credible and dismissed the employer's charges, concluding no wrongdoing occurred.

The Board also denied the employer's request for an adjournment, which was sought because the employer's adviser was on a golf holiday, emphasizing the need for expedition in certification proceedings.

A certificate was issued to the union.

One Board Member dissented, finding the allegations of threats credible and would have ordered a vote.

The union referred a grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act claiming the employer failed to comply with the collective agreement.

The employer objected that the grievance was barred by the settlement of an earlier grievance involving the same parties, project, and time period.

The Board found that the earlier settlement, which resolved the union's general claim of non-compliance without a claim for compensation, implicitly included any claim for compensation.

The Board held that the subject matter of the current grievance had been settled and dismissed the application.

The applicant employer referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent union improperly refused to issue a work permit to a newly hired first-year apprentice.

The employer had hired the apprentice directly, relying on clause 2.05(a) of the collective agreement.

The Board, following a previous decision interpreting the same clause, found that the employer was entitled to hire the new apprentice since its shop ratio was in order.

Consequently, the Board directed the union to supply the apprentice with a regular work permit without delay.

In an application for certification, a representation vote was held.

The day before the vote, the employer laid off a significant number of employees due to the completion of a contract.

The ballots of the laid-off employees were segregated.

The union protested the segregation.

The Board held that employees on indefinite lay-off are generally ineligible to vote, but those with substantial and legitimate expectations of being recalled in the near future should not be disenfranchised.

The Board directed that the ballots of 11 laid-off employees who had returned to work or had a clear expectation of recall be counted, while the remaining 17 segregated ballots were not to be counted.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit consisting of employees at the Orangeville Sports Complex, claiming craft status under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act based on the requirement for a 'B' class refrigeration ticket.

The respondent municipality argued for a comprehensive unit of all outside employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant failed to establish the requirements for a craft unit, noting a lack of evidence of a history of separate bargaining for such employees.

The Board determined the proposed unit was inappropriate and, finding the applicant had less than forty-five percent membership in the appropriate broader unit, dismissed the application.

In an application for certification, a pre-hearing representation vote resulted in a tie with four segregated ballots.

The Board held a hearing to determine the eligibility of the employees who cast the segregated ballots.

Applying the 'seven week rule', the Board determined that one employee was eligible to vote as a full-time employee, while the others were ineligible as part-time employees or students employed during the school vacation period.

Because counting the single eligible segregated ballot would reveal how that employee voted, the Board directed that a new representation vote be taken to preserve the secrecy of the ballot.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a bargaining unit consisting of cleaning staff at a single apartment building managed by the respondent.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description.

The Board held a hearing to address concerns about undue fragmentation of the workforce.

Given the history of viable collective bargaining relationships in the property management industry based on similar site-specific cleaning units, and relying on a previous decision involving the same parties at a nearby building, the Board accepted the agreed-upon bargaining unit as appropriate and granted the certificate.