7 total
Employer breached duty to bargain in good faith by withholding relocation plans; collective agreement applies to new site.
The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint and an application for a declaration of an unlawful lock-out, alleging the employer threatened to move part of its operations to a new location not covered by the collective agreement unless the union agreed to concessions.
The employer subsequently moved the Packaged Gas plant to a new location in Oakville.
The Board found that the scope clause of the existing collective agreement, which covered all employees at the employer's plant in Oakville, applied to the new facility.
Furthermore, the Board held that the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith by failing to disclose its plans for technological change and relocation during the recent round of collective bargaining when specifically asked by the union.
Union did not breach duty of fair representation by having International President ratify agreement without employee vote.
The complainants, employees of The T. Eaton Company Limited, alleged that the respondent union violated the Labour Relations Act by failing to hold a ratification vote before accepting a collective agreement.
The union, facing a prolonged strike and the potential loss of bargaining rights, had its International President ratify the agreement after conducting a back-to-work vote among striking employees only.
The Board found that the union did not act in bad faith or violate its duty of fair representation, as it was not legally obligated to hold a ratification vote and acted to protect its bargaining rights.
The complaints were dismissed.
Board determines appropriate hospital service bargaining unit, including RNAs but excluding technical and clerical staff.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of service workers at the respondent hospital.
The hospital argued that the unit should be broader and include various technical, paramedical, and clerical classifications.
The Board reviewed the history and principles of bargaining unit determination in the hospital sector.
It concluded that Registered Nursing Assistants (RNA's) and Nursing Technicians should be included in the service unit due to established collective bargaining practice.
However, other technical personnel, lab assistants, and ward clerks were excluded, as they could appropriately be placed in paramedical or clerical units without affecting the viability of the service unit.
Union certified without a vote; alleged intimidation by security staff did not warrant representation vote.
The applicant trade union applied for certification for four bargaining units at the respondent's retail store in Brampton.
The parties disputed the geographic scope of the units and the exclusion of personnel staff.
The Board defined the units to include all retail stores in Brampton and excluded only the existing personnel supervisor.
Objecting employees requested a representation vote, alleging intimidation and coercion by union supporters and security staff.
The Board found that the conduct of fellow employees was normal campaign byplay and that the security staff's actions did not unlawfully interfere with employee rights.
Given that over 80% of employees had signed membership cards, the Board certified the union without a vote.
Union failed to establish common practice of separate bargaining for maintenance electricians under section 6(3).
The applicant union applied for certification to represent a unit of maintenance electricians employed by the respondent mining company.
The union argued that the electricians constituted a craft unit deemed appropriate under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act.
The Board reviewed extensive evidence of the union's bargaining practices across various industries in Canada and the United States.
The Board found that outside the construction and related industries, the union did not commonly bargain separately and apart for maintenance electricians.
Consequently, the union failed to meet the mandatory criteria of section 6(3) and was not entitled to a separate craft bargaining unit.
Board directed parties to narrow issues regarding inclusion of paramedical employees in service bargaining unit.
The union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of hospital service workers, excluding technical and paramedical employees.
The hospital argued that technical and paramedical personnel share a community of interest with service workers and should be included in the unit.
The Board expressed concern over the potential delay and cost of resolving the status of numerous classifications.
The Board directed the parties to investigate and particularize the classifications in dispute to narrow the issues before a further hearing.
Trade union directed to execute collective agreement after majority of employees accepted employer's last offer in statutory vote.
The employer requested a final offer vote under section 34e of the Labour Relations Act during a strike.
A majority of employees voted to accept the offer, but the trade union refused to sign the collective agreement, arguing the vote was merely an opinion poll and that the employer's pre-vote communications, which included a reference to a possible plant closure, constituted unlawful coercion.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that a section 34e vote in favour of an offer creates a binding basis for a collective agreement in the usual case.
The Board found the employer's statements were reasonable predictions based on bargaining reality rather than unlawful threats.
The trade union was directed to execute the collective agreement.
