9 total
Board determines bargaining unit composition and applies standard 4/7 test for full-time status in certification application.
The applicant union applied for certification of two bargaining units (full-time and part-time) at the respondent's warehouse.
The parties disputed the geographic scope, the exclusion of 'office and sales staff', the specific classifications falling within that exclusion, and the test for determining full-time versus part-time status.
The Board ruled that the geographic scope should be the Township of Westminster and agreed to exclude office and sales staff, finding that the proposed units were appropriate and would not cause serious labour relations problems.
The Board analyzed various classifications, including vault clerks, receiving secretary, inventory auditors, membership clerks, electronic sales, and tire sales, to determine their community of interest.
Finally, the Board declined the union's request to depart from its standard '4/7' test for determining full-time status, finding no special circumstances to warrant a departure.
The hearing was scheduled to continue to address remaining issues and related unfair labour practice complaints.
Board consolidates certification and unfair labour practice proceedings and sets peremptory hearing dates.
The union applied for certification and filed a related section 89 unfair labour practice complaint, seeking to consolidate the two proceedings.
The employer and objecting employees opposed the setting of peremptory hearing dates.
The Board ordered the matters consolidated due to overlapping evidence and set ten peremptory hearing dates to ensure the certification matter was dealt with expeditiously, adjourning the case to a new panel.
Employee organization lacking formal constitution and membership obligations is not a trade union; certification granted.
The applicant union applied for certification.
The respondent employer argued that an existing collective agreement with the Center Tool Employees Organization barred the application, or alternatively, that a representation vote should be held.
The Board found that the Center Tool Employees Organization lacked a formal constitution, membership requirements, and mutual obligations among employees, and therefore was not a 'trade union' within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act.
As the applicant had the support of approximately two-thirds of the bargaining unit, the Board granted certification without directing a representation vote.
Employer violated OHSA by intimidating an employee refusing unsafe work, but lawfully sent refusers home without pay.
The complainants, employees at the respondent's plant, refused to work due to the smell of gasoline fumes.
The respondent sent the refusing employees home without pay pending a Ministry of Labour investigation.
One complainant, Arnold, alleged he was intimidated by his foreman who repeatedly ordered him back to work and threatened to stop his pay.
The Board found that the respondent violated section 24(1)(d) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by intimidating Arnold, as the foreman's actions negated his statutory right to refuse unsafe work.
However, the Board dismissed the complaint regarding the loss of pay for the other refusers, finding that sending them home was a practical response to a lack of work and not a penalty under section 24(1)(c).
Air freight forwarding business found to be a local undertaking within provincial labour relations jurisdiction.
The union applied for certification of the respondent's employees.
The respondent argued its air freight forwarding business fell under federal jurisdiction as an integral part of interprovincial and international air transport.
The Board held that the respondent's business was a purely local undertaking, as it merely contracted with air carriers on behalf of customers and did not provide interprovincial transportation itself.
The Board assumed jurisdiction.
In an addendum, the Board found an employee petition opposing certification was voluntary and ordered a representation vote.
Board finds three separate single-plant bargaining units appropriate rather than one multi-plant unit.
The applicant union sought certification for a single bargaining unit comprising employees at three of the respondent's plants.
The respondent argued that three separate single-plant units were appropriate.
Applying the Usarco criteria, the Board considered the community of interest, centralization of managerial authority, economic factors, and source of work.
The Board found that the lack of employee interchange, the identical nature of the work, and the considerable autonomy of the individual plant managers tilted the balance in favour of three separate units.
The application was dismissed with respect to one unit due to insufficient membership support, and the ballots for the other two units were ordered to be counted.
Union granted interim certification after establishing trade union status following a name change and merger.
The Board considered whether the applicant, following a name change and merger, was a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1)(n) of the Labour Relations Act.
The Board found that the applicant had continued the constitutional continuity of its predecessor and was therefore a trade union.
The Board appointed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the duties of assistant managers and management trainees, but granted interim certification as the union had sufficient membership support regardless of the outcome of the dispute.
Employer breached duty to bargain in good faith by insisting on altering recognition clause to exclude related company.
The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer bargained in bad faith by repudiating a memorandum of agreement.
The parties had resolved all outstanding issues and signed a memorandum subject to ratification.
Before ratification, the respondent acquired a related company and subsequently refused to ratify the agreement unless the union agreed to amend the recognition clause to explicitly exclude the employees of the newly acquired company.
The Board held that the respondent's insistence on altering the recognition clause to avoid the potential application of the related employer provisions of the Labour Relations Act was inconsistent with the scheme of the Act and constituted a breach of the duty to bargain in good faith.
Owner/operator truck drivers found to be dependent contractors of quarry owner despite introduction of brokerage system.
The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of dependent contractor owner/operator truck drivers who hauled aggregate from the Canada Crushed Stone quarry.
The drivers had previously worked directly for Canada Crushed Stone but were later required to operate through brokers, including A. Cupido Haulage.
The Board applied the statutory definition of 'dependent contractor' and found that despite the introduction of the brokerage system, the drivers remained economically dependent upon Canada Crushed Stone, which continued to control their day-to-day work, set their rates, and provide the bulk of their work.
The Board concluded that the drivers were dependent contractors of Canada Crushed Stone and constituted an appropriate bargaining unit.
