8 total
Board has jurisdiction over bank branch construction as it is not integral to core banking.
The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the respondent bank's failure to abide by a provincial collective agreement during the construction of a bank branch.
The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the construction of banks falls within exclusive federal jurisdiction over banking.
The Board applied a functional test and determined that the construction of a bank building is a pre-operational task and not an integral part of the core banking function.
Consequently, the Board dismissed the preliminary objection, found it had jurisdiction to hear the grievance, and directed the matter to be re-listed for hearing.
Employees at a religious order's Mother House are not excluded from the Labour Relations Act.
The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of part-time lay employees working at Mount St. Joseph, the Mother House of the Sisters of St. Joseph of the Diocese of Peterborough.
The respondent argued that the employees were excluded from the Labour Relations Act under section 2(a) as 'domestics employed in a private home'.
The Board found that the institutional nature of the residence, which housed 67 sisters and operated with set shifts and lay supervisors, distinguished it from a private home.
The Board concluded the employees were not excluded from the Act and issued a certificate to the applicant.
First contract arbitration directed after employer's notional recall proposal found to be bad faith bargaining.
The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint and an application for first contract arbitration after the employer, a boarding school, proposed a "notional recall" of striking teachers as a condition of settlement.
The proposal would have paid a select group of teachers but kept replacement workers in the classrooms until the end of the school year, excluding key union organizers.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's proposal was deliberately obstructive, lacked reasonable justification, and was motivated by a desire to avoid concluding a collective agreement and returning union supporters to work.
The Board held that the employer violated sections 15, 66, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act, directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration, and ordered the immediate reinstatement of the excluded union organizers.
Applications dismissed; contracting out delivery runs did not constitute a sale of a business.
The Globe and Mail decided to contract out its Ontario highway delivery runs and lay off its drivers to save costs.
The union alleged that the contracting out to independent carriers constituted a sale of a business or that the entities were related employers under the Labour Relations Act.
The union also alleged unfair labour practices when the Globe refused to award delivery contracts to four laid-off employees after the union indicated it might assert they remained employees.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the applications, finding no sale of a business or related employer relationship, as the Globe merely transferred a like function to independent contractors.
The Board declined to grant remedial relief for the alleged unfair labour practices, noting the Globe's actions were a response to the union's late assertion of rights that would have undermined the legitimate business decision to contract out.
Application for first contract arbitration dismissed as employer had reasonable justification for its bargaining positions.
The applicant union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.
The union alleged that the respondent private school failed to make reasonable or expeditious efforts to conclude an agreement and adopted uncompromising bargaining positions without reasonable justification regarding management rights, seniority, and layoffs.
The Board found that while the bargaining process was unsuccessful, the respondent had reasonable justification for its positions, given its financial deficit, declining enrolment, and the need to remain competitive with other private schools.
The application was dismissed, with one Board member dissenting.
Unfair labour practice complaints dismissed; course cancellations during strike were for bona fide operational reasons.
The union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the College violated the College's Collective Bargaining Act by cancelling extension courses taught by full-time faculty during a legal strike, and by refusing to allow a specific faculty member to teach in the subsequent semester due to his union activities.
The Board found that the College's decisions to replace or cancel the suspended courses were made for bona fide operational reasons to minimize disruption, and were not tainted by anti-union animus.
The Board also concluded that the refusal to hire the specific faculty member was based on his unprofessional conduct and low course enrolment, rather than his union involvement.
The complaints were dismissed.
Board lacks jurisdiction to substitute an incapacitated panel member mid-hearing without all parties' consent.
During a lengthy hearing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the employer representative on the panel became too ill to continue.
The parties could not agree on whether to substitute the incapacitated member or how to proceed.
The Board held that, unlike other statutes, the Labour Relations Act does not contain a provision allowing the Board to replace a panel member who is unable to complete their duties due to illness.
Absent the consent of all parties, the Board lacked jurisdiction to substitute the member or continue with the remaining two members.
Consequently, the Board directed that the complaint be heard de novo before a new panel.
Concerted refusal to cross a picket line constitutes an unlawful strike despite past employer accommodation.
The Toronto Transit Commission applied for a cease and desist direction, alleging that transit drivers engaged in an unlawful strike by refusing to cross a picket line at an Eaton's store, and that the union encouraged this action.
The union argued that the employer had a 30-year past practice of accommodating drivers who refused to cross picket lines.
The Board held that a concerted refusal to cross a picket line constitutes a strike under the Labour Relations Act, and that past practice or private arrangements cannot override the absolute statutory prohibition on strikes under the T.T.C. Act.
The Board issued declarations of an unlawful strike and cease and desist directions against the employees and the union.
