Glenn Peter Christie

The applicant employee filed an application to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding union in the ICI sector of the construction industry.

The responding union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application, arguing that the applicant failed to serve notice on each Affiliated Bargaining Agency and constituent member of the Employee Bargaining Agency as required by section 63(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the applicant had served the trade union named on the ICI certificate, which was a party to the collective agreement.

Consequently, the Board held that the service requirements were met and dismissed the preliminary motion.

The union applied under section 43 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

The parties had reached an impasse over the employer's insistence on an 'elect to work' scheduling model, which the employer claimed was necessary to remain competitive in the home care market.

The Board found that the collective bargaining process had been unsuccessful due to the uncompromising nature of the employer's position without reasonable justification, particularly given the employer's refusal to provide financial data to substantiate its claims of competitive necessity.

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

The Ontario Nurses' Association filed an unfair labour practice complaint against Comcare, alleging that the employer's actions during a lawful strike violated the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union argued that the employer unlawfully intimidated striking nurses by contacting them about their availability, issuing Records of Employment, and terminating their benefits.

The union also alleged that the employer's use and payment of replacement workers constituted unlawful strike-breaking and surface bargaining.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the employer's communications, while 'playing hardball' and intended to bring home the economic consequences of the strike, were not unlawfully intimidating or coercive.

The Board also found that the employer had a rational business reason for its use and payment of replacement workers, and that its actions did not constitute a breach of the Act.