Donald Kenneth Eady

The applicant local unions applied under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent international union violated section 150 by refusing to recognize the locals' right to appoint trustees to the Canadian pension plan.

The Board found that the Canadian Plan was a separate plan from the American Plan and constituted an 'employment benefit plan' under section 150.

The Board declared that the international union violated section 150 by refusing to accept the right of the applicant local unions to appoint trustees, and determined that the locals were entitled to appoint 58.33% of the trustees.

The Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen applied under section 154 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to be certified as the exclusive employee bargaining agency for the provincial unit, seeking to oust the International Union from the designated agency.

The Board found that the applicant met the statutory definition of an 'employee bargaining agency' and had standing to apply.

The Board further found that a majority of the affiliated bargaining agents supported the application, and conditionally concluded that they held bargaining rights for a majority of employees, subject to any final representations from the opposing parties.

The applicant union sought interim relief to prevent the exclusion of certain employees from the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act pending a decision on the merits.

The Board held that while section 98 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 limits interim orders to procedural matters, section 16.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act grants the Board a broader, general power to make interim orders related to its jurisdiction, which prevails due to the override provision in section 32 of the SPPA.

However, the Board declined to grant interim relief in this case, primarily because the applicant was unwilling to proceed expeditiously with a hearing on the merits.

The applicants, classified employees in the Ontario Public Service, filed applications alleging that their trade union breached its duty of fair representation by agreeing to process their outstanding classification grievances through an expedited mediation-arbitration process without their consent.

The trade union and the employer brought a motion to dismiss the applications for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board found that the trade union had the right to settle or dispose of grievances without the individual applicants' consent, and that the decision to use an expedited process to resolve a long-standing backlog of cases was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The applications were dismissed without a hearing on the merits.

The Association of Law Officers of the Crown applied for certification to represent articling students employed by the Crown.

OPSEU intervened, claiming it already held bargaining rights for these students under an Order-in-Council establishing bargaining units for Crown employees.

The applicants argued that articling students fell into a residual bargaining unit and challenged OPSEU's representation.

The Board interpreted the statutory framework and Orders-in-Council, concluding that articling students were properly included in the first bargaining unit for which OPSEU was designated as the bargaining agent.

Consequently, the certification application was untimely, and the related applications to terminate bargaining rights and alleging unfair labour practices were dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent security guards employed by the respondent at a single hospital in Metropolitan Toronto.

The respondent employer argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should encompass all its security guards across its nine hospital locations in the municipality, citing centralized management, similar duties, and potential contractual conflicts.

The Board applied its principles on geographic scope and community of interest, finding insufficient evidence of regular employee interchange between locations to render the single-location unit inappropriate.

The Board granted certification for the single-location bargaining unit.

The complainant sought to enforce two summonses served on witnesses.

The Board found that neither summons was enforceable.

One summons was served outside the Board's jurisdiction in Michigan and was accompanied by a money order rather than cash.

The other summons was also accompanied by a money order, which does not constitute proper conduct money under the rules.

The Board ruled that conduct money must be paid in cash, not by cheque or money order, and that service must occur within the Board's jurisdiction.