9 total
Union's claim against bankrupt employer's receivers for unremitted dues dismissed due to bankruptcy stay.
The applicant trade union filed an unfair labour practice complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding parties—various receivers and secured creditors of the bankrupt employer—violated section 70 by failing to remit approximately $35,000 in union dues deducted prior to the bankruptcy.
The responding parties raised preliminary objections that the application did not disclose a prima facie case and that the Board lacked jurisdiction.
The Board dismissed the application, finding that the receivers and creditors could not be characterized as 'persons acting on behalf of an employer' under section 70.
Furthermore, the Board held that the claim for unremitted dues was a 'claim provable in bankruptcy' and was therefore caught by the stay of proceedings under section 69.3(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
Board declined to enforce arbitrated first collective agreement pending employer's judicial review of the award.
The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint seeking to enforce a first collective agreement imposed by a board of arbitration, which included a disputed union shop clause.
The responding employer refused to implement the agreement, arguing the arbitration board exceeded its jurisdiction, and filed an application for judicial review.
The Board first ruled that bargaining unit employees who opposed the union shop clause were not entitled to notice or standing in the complaint, as their employment status was not directly affected at this stage.
Ultimately, the Board declined to inquire into the union's complaint, finding that the fundamental issue of the collective agreement's validity was best determined by the Court in the pending judicial review application.
Employer committed an unfair labour practice by discriminatorily revoking free movie passes for newly unionized employees.
The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by discontinuing the practice of providing free movie passes to newly unionized front-of-house employees immediately after their first collective agreement was signed.
The employer argued it was merely enforcing an 'entire agreement' clause.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the employer was entitled to rely on the clause, its differential treatment of the front-of-house staff compared to unionized projectionists (who continued to receive passes) demonstrated an anti-union animus.
The Board declared a violation of section 72 and ordered the employer to cease and desist the discriminatory practice.
Board grants successor rights declaration following union's internal transfer of projectionist jurisdiction to a single local.
The applicant union, IATSE Local 173, applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration that it was the successor to several other IATSE locals with respect to their jurisdiction over projectionists.
The reorganization was approved by the parent union and the membership of the affected locals.
Famous Players and Cineplex Odeon opposed the application, arguing that the union constitution did not permit the transfer of jurisdiction in this manner.
The Board found that the reorganization was consistent with the union's constitution and past practice, and that the term 'jurisdiction' in section 63 encompassed the transfer of geographic and craft jurisdiction between local unions.
The Board granted the declaration, confirming Local 173 as the successor bargaining agent.
Union certification applications dismissed because authorization cards did not constitute valid membership evidence under the Act.
The applicant union sought certification for three groups of employees, submitting authorization cards as evidence of employee support.
The employer argued the cards merely expressed a desire for representation and did not constitute 'membership' or an 'application for membership' as required by the Labour Relations Act.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed the statutory history, including the impact of Bill 40, and concluded that the legislative changes did not alter the fundamental requirement for actual membership or an application for membership.
Finding that the authorization cards did not meet this standard, and refusing to admit oral evidence to cure the documentary defect, the Board dismissed the certification applications.
Employer contravened Labour Relations Act by using managerial personnel to supervise apprentice projectionist during strike.
The union filed a complaint alleging the employer contravened section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act by using replacement workers during a lawful strike.
The employer used an assistant manager to operate projection equipment and later to supervise an apprentice projectionist.
The Board found that the assistant manager's initial operation of the equipment violated the Act.
Furthermore, the Board held that supervising an apprentice projectionist constitutes bargaining unit work, and the employer's use of the assistant manager for this purpose also contravened section 73.1.
The Board issued a cease-and-desist direction.
CCAA stay order encompasses and stays ongoing proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
The respondent Steinberg Inc. obtained an ex parte order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) from the Quebec Superior Court staying all proceedings against it.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board considered whether this stay order applied to ongoing unfair labour practice and related employer proceedings before the Board.
The Board held that the broad language of the CCAA and the court order encompassed its adjudicative processes, notwithstanding the remedial nature of the Labour Relations Act.
The Board further held that the proceedings could not be severed to continue against the co-respondent A&P unless the applicants withdrew their complaints against Steinberg.
Unqualified employees and those on training courses are excluded from construction industry electrician bargaining unit.
In an application for certification in the construction industry, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined whether certain individuals should be counted as employees in the proposed bargaining unit of electricians.
The Board found that an employee attending a training program on the application date was not 'at work' in the unit.
The Board also held that three employees performing electrical work on the employer's own premises, who were not qualified journeymen or apprentice electricians under the Trades Qualification Act, should not be included in the unit because they shared no real community of interest with qualified electricians who could lawfully work on construction sites for clients.
Union's expulsion of managerial inspectors for performing bargaining unit work during a strike did not violate the Act.
The Toronto Transit Commission filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the union after the union expelled several inspectors from membership.
During a strike, the TTC had directed the inspectors, who were excluded from the bargaining unit as managerial personnel, to perform bargaining unit work.
The union passed a resolution revoking the local membership of any inspector who complied, which resulted in the loss of their departmental seniority rights upon return to the bargaining unit.
The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the strike provisions of the Labour Relations Act (sections 74, 76, and 78) apply only to 'employees' and not to managerial persons.
The Board further held that section 70 does not protect managerial persons seeking to enforce seniority rights under a collective agreement.
