George Rontiris

The union applied for a declaration that Ottawa Valley Autistic Homes is a 'hospital' under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA) and that a lock-out by the employer was illegal.

The Board advised the Minister that the agency, which provides residential and vocational services to autistic individuals, is an institution operated for the observation, care, or treatment of persons afflicted with a physical or mental illness, and thus qualifies as a hospital.

However, the Board dismissed the application for a declaration of an illegal lock-out, finding that the lock-out was legal under the Labour Relations Act until the Minister formally replaced the initial no-board report with a notice under the HLDAA.

The union brought an application alleging a sale of business and related employer status between Bellefeuille Electric Limited (B.E.) and Portt Electric Ltd. (P.E.).

B.E.'s owner retired and sold significant assets, tools, and equipment to a former employee who started P.E. The former employee also used B.E.'s owner's Master's License to operate and secure work.

The Board dismissed the related employer application under subsection 1(4) as B.E.'s owner did not take an active role in P.E.'s operations.

However, the Board found a sale of business under section 69, concluding that the transfer of assets, the financing arrangement, the use of the Master's License, and the overlap in customers constituted a transfer of the essential elements of B.E.'s business to P.E. P.E. was declared bound to the collective agreements.

The applicant applied to terminate the responding party union's bargaining rights for employees of the intervenor employer.

The application encompassed two bargaining units: one for the ICI sector and one for service and maintenance work, which included both construction and non-construction work.

The union argued that the application could only deal with construction industry bargaining rights and that the Board had no jurisdiction to order a vote for the non-ICI sectors.

The Board held that an application to terminate bargaining rights must be based on the bargaining unit defined in the collective agreement, even if it encompasses both construction and non-construction work.

The Board further determined that construction industry rules apply to such mixed units and that one application form can cover two bargaining units.

The Board directed a representation vote for the service and maintenance unit and declared the union's bargaining rights terminated for the ICI sector based on a previous vote.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent university breached sections 70 and 73(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 during a restructuring exercise.

The university had distributed a questionnaire directly to employees seeking input on work processes and excluded the union from information sessions.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the section 73(1) complaint, finding that the questionnaire did not constitute direct bargaining as it did not compel answers on collective bargaining issues or put forward proposals.

However, the Board allowed the section 70 complaint, concluding that the university's refusal to allow the union to participate in the consultation process interfered with its representational rights without a persuasive business purpose.

The Board ordered the university to post a notice of the violation.

The applicant union sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to reinstate an employee who was allegedly discharged for his involvement in a union organizing drive.

The responding employer claimed the employee was discharged for covering up a theft.

In its first decision interpreting the new interim relief power, the Board established a test requiring an arguable case on the merits and a balancing of the harm to both parties.

Finding that the discharge of a union organizer has a severe chilling effect on an organizing campaign that cannot easily be remedied later, the Board concluded the balance of harm favoured the applicant.

The Board ordered the employee's interim reinstatement pending the final disposition of the unfair labour practice complaint, but denied the request for interim compensation.

The complainant alleged that his employment was terminated in reprisal for raising health and safety concerns, contrary to section 24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The complainant sought an adjournment to compel a Ministry of Labour inspector to testify, which the Board denied due to statutory compellability restrictions and lack of notice.

On the merits, the Board found that the complainant's discharge was the result of an ongoing clash of management styles and his refusal to follow the employer's directions, rather than any health and safety work refusal or request for a Ministry inspection.

The complaint was dismissed.

The United Steelworkers of America applied for certification to represent employees at the respondent's manufacturing plant.

Although the union demonstrated membership support exceeding 55%, a group of objecting employees filed a petition opposing certification, which would normally trigger a representation vote if found voluntary.

The Board determined the petition was not voluntary, as it was circulated by an employee perceived to have managerial authority and following a meeting with an owner that sparked widespread rumours of plant closure if the union succeeded.

Concluding that the signatures were likely influenced by fears for job security and perceived management involvement, the Board declined to order a vote and granted the certificate.

The complainant union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent unions argued that a settlement had been reached between the unions.

The Board found that the complainant's written offer of settlement was conditional upon the approval of a third-party employer association.

Furthermore, the respondent union made a counter-offer which nullified the original offer, and the original offer was withdrawn before any valid acceptance.

The Board concluded that no settlement had been reached and directed that the hearing on the merits of the jurisdictional dispute continue.

The Board also denied a request by the Acoustical Association of Ontario to be added as a party.