E. Rovet

The applicant union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration pursuant to section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The union argued that the employer failed to make reasonable or expeditious efforts to conclude a collective agreement.

The Board found that the employer's conduct, including refusing to present a monetary package, sending ill-prepared negotiators without authority, and reneging on previous proposals, demonstrated a failure to make reasonable or expeditious efforts.

The Board directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The complainant, a taxi driver, filed complaints alleging that the respondent employer breached the statutory freeze provisions of section 79 of the Labour Relations Act by increasing taxi rentals after a union applied for certification.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the complainant lacked standing.

The Board held that the statutory freeze protects the rights of the trade union, not individual employees, and therefore only the trade union has standing to bring a complaint under section 79.

The complaints were dismissed.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent company terminated the employment of six grievors in violation of the Labour Relations Act due to anti-union animus following an unsuccessful certification vote.

The Board found that the termination of one grievor, who had a long history of poor performance, was not motivated by anti-union animus and dismissed that portion of the complaint.

However, the Board found that the failure to reassign or rehire the other five grievors after their department was closed was motivated by anti-union animus on the part of the general manager.

The Board directed the parties to attempt to agree on the appropriate remedies for the successful grievors.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent drivers of the respondent taxi company.

Preliminary issues arose regarding the Board's constitutional jurisdiction, given the company's extra-provincial trips to Quebec, and the status of two interveners.

The Board adjourned the constitutional issue pending further evidence and the outcome of a parallel federal application.

The Board denied intervener status to the Ottawa Taxi Owners and Brokers Association, finding it had only a commercial interest, and to the Canadian Union of Operating Engineers, finding it failed to demonstrate it represented the affected employees or that its collective agreement covered them.

The applicant applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union argued the petition was involuntary, relying on a previous Board decision involving the same employer where a different petition was found to be tainted by employer payment of legal fees.

The Board found no evidence connecting the current petition to the previous lawyer or any employer interference.

The Board concluded the petition was voluntary and directed a representation vote.

The applicant and a group of employees applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The Board considered whether the petition supporting the application was voluntary, given that the employees were also shareholders bound by a shareholders' agreement to further common interests.

The Board found that the employees were motivated by their financial interests as shareholders threatened by the continuation of the union's bargaining rights, and not by the legal covenant in the agreement.

The Board concluded the petition was a voluntary expression of their wishes and directed the application to continue to determine if the signatories were employees in the bargaining unit.

The applicant sought a declaration to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union raised a preliminary issue, arguing the Board should defer its determination until a pending arbitration decided whether certain employees were properly recalled under the collective agreement.

The Board declined to await the arbitration outcome, noting the need to avoid further delay and the possibility that the arbitration decision might not resolve the Board's issues regarding voter eligibility.

The Board directed that the application proceed on its merits.

The complainant, a foreman, filed a complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation.

Following an incident where the complainant failed to call in an employee for overtime, the union executive organized a petition threatening an unlawful strike unless the complainant was removed from supervising jointers.

The employer conceded, resulting in the complainant losing overtime work.

The Board found the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, and in bad faith by leading an action against its own member without investigating or giving him an opportunity to respond.

The Board ordered the employer to reinstate the complainant to standby duty and the union to compensate him for lost earnings.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees at Ontario Hydro's nuclear energy facilities, seeking to carve them out of an existing province-wide bargaining unit represented by the intervener.

The applicant requested a pre-hearing representation vote under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board refused the request, finding that the proposed bargaining unit was highly complex, uncertain, and a departure from the established province-wide collective bargaining relationship.

The Board concluded that the appropriateness of the bargaining unit must be determined before any representation vote could be reliably conducted.