Howard Goldblatt

The applicant filed a complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging reprisals for raising health and safety concerns, which included allegations of a racially poisoned work environment and physical hazards.

The responding party brought a preliminary motion requesting the Board defer to the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Board found that the essence of the complaint was racial discrimination and harassment, which falls squarely within the specialized jurisdiction of the Commission under the Human Rights Code.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 50(3) of the OHSA to decline to inquire into the matter and dismissed the application.

The complainant union alleged that the employer committed an unfair labour practice by issuing written communications to employees during collective bargaining.

The union argued that the employer was attempting to bargain directly with employees and undermine the union's exclusive bargaining rights.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer's communications were accurate, did not disparage the union, and were permissible exercises of the employer's freedom of expression under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board concluded that the employer was merely explaining its bargaining position and not attempting to negotiate directly with the employees.

The union filed a complaint alleging the university violated the duty to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to negotiate the union's 9-point programme regarding the divestment of the Royal Conservatory of Music, refusing to disclose related information, and refusing to continue negotiations pending the outcome of the complaint.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the university's refusal to discuss the 9-point programme and its refusal to continue negotiations pending the complaint violated the duty to bargain in good faith.

However, the Board found no violation regarding the refusal to disclose information or alleged delay.

The Board directed the university to bargain in good faith and table a full package of proposals.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The issue was whether the applicant met the 45% threshold of employees in the bargaining unit.

The union argued that 13 persons whose employment was terminated due to subcontracting should be counted if their pending grievance succeeded.

The employer argued for the 30/30 rule, which would exclude them.

The Board held that under section 1(2) of the Labour Relations Act, the terminated individuals should be treated as employees if reinstated by the arbitration board.

The matter was adjourned pending the release of the arbitration award.

The complainant filed a section 68 complaint against the union regarding its decision not to take his discharge grievance to arbitration.

The union and the employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint due to a nine-month delay in filing.

The Board dismissed the preliminary motion, finding that the delay was not extreme enough to cause severe prejudice to the respondents' ability to mount a defence or to their collective bargaining relationship.

The matter was directed to be relisted for a hearing on the merits.

The complainant school board alleged that a mass resignation by summer school principals, vice-principals, and curriculum resource teachers constituted an unlawful strike under the Labour Relations Act, and that the teachers' union encouraged it.

The union had issued a 'pink letter' advising members not to accept summer positions due to a collective bargaining impasse.

The Board found that the resignees were employees who had already commenced preparatory duties, and their coordinated resignations to exert bargaining pressure amounted to an unlawful strike.

The Board issued a cease and desist direction against the union and its District 16 president for counselling and supporting the unlawful strike.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union regarding its failure to assist her after she was terminated.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the complainant was incapable of returning to work, the complaint did not make out a prima facie case, and there was excessive delay in filing.

The Board dismissed the preliminary motion, finding that the factual disputes required a hearing and that the delay, while significant, did not cause real prejudice to the respondents.

The Board noted that any remedy could be adjusted to account for the delay.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under s. 107 of the Labour Relations Act regarding his authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The issue turned on whether a collective agreement was in operation between the employer and the trade union.

The parties had signed a memorandum of agreement but had a mutual mistake regarding the inclusion of a cost-of-living allowance (C.O.L.A.) clause.

Upon realizing the misunderstanding, the employer withdrew its offer before the union membership ratified it.

The Board held that the memorandum was merely an offer that was legally and properly withdrawn prior to ratification.

Consequently, no collective agreement was in operation, and the Minister had the authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The complainant, a sighted employee, was awarded a lead hand position over a more senior, registered blind employee.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the blind employee, relying on a collective agreement provision granting preference to registered blind personnel.

The complainant alleged the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by favouring the blind employee's interests and discriminating against him because he is sighted.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding the union acted in good faith based on a reasonable interpretation of the collective agreement.

The Board further held that enforcing a contractual preference for blind persons is akin to a special program under the Human Rights Code and does not constitute prohibited discrimination under the Act.

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

The union argued that the petition circulated by the applicants was invalid because it lacked a heading indicating its purpose at the time it was signed.

The Board found that because the applicants showed each signatory a blank Form 17 (Application for Declaration Terminating Bargaining Rights) before they signed, the employees knew the purpose of the petition.

The Board accepted the petition as voluntary signification in writing and ordered a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, arguing the petition did not meet the strict requirements of Rule 73.

The applicant union sought certification, and a dispute arose regarding the composition of the bargaining unit.

The Board determined that a First Cook exercised managerial functions and was excluded, while a Housekeeper with minor supervisory duties was included.

The Board also found that a maintenance worker who received a $5,000 advance on wages to buy a truck upon turning 65 remained an employee at the time of the application.

The Board directed that the representation vote ballots be counted.

The applicants applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights for a full-time employee unit.

The union argued the appropriate unit included part-time employees and students, relying on a single document containing terms for both groups.

The Board found the document constituted two separate collective agreements and the full-time unit was appropriate.

The Board also denied the applicants' request to call all petition signatories to testify, citing the need to protect the secrecy of union membership under section 111(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The employer and a group of objecting employees opposed the application, filing a statement of desire signed by several employees who had previously signed union membership cards.

The Board found that the employer had engaged in actions, including changing a key union supporter's shifts and altering pay cheque distribution days, that would likely be viewed as a response to the union organizing campaign.

Furthermore, the involvement of an individual perceived as connected to management in the origination of the statement of desire led the Board to conclude that the statement did not represent a voluntary expression of the employees' wishes.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and certified the union.

In an application for certification, the employer objected to the union reviewing the employee list, arguing it could be used for future organizing and that employees wished to remain anonymous.

The Board ruled that the union must be given access to the list to verify its accuracy, as the Board relies on it to determine union support.

The Board also ruled that the union could review the list without management present to protect the secrecy of union membership and solicitor-client privilege.

A representation vote was ordered.

During a union certification representation vote, a segregated ballot was inadvertently opened, revealing an employee's choice.

The employee, who was related to management, subsequently faced pressure from the employer and requested a new vote.

The union argued that the employer's knowledge of the employee's support would impede a free second vote and requested certification under section 7a of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered a second representation vote, emphasizing the paramount importance of the secret ballot and finding that the isolated family flare-up did not justify certification without a vote.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer failed to comply with a previous Board order directing the parties to bargain in good faith.

During a mediation meeting, the respondent tabled new proposals and insisted they be resolved before any economic issues or the union's prior proposals could be discussed.

The Board found that the respondent's insistence on limiting discussion to its own pre-conditions restricted the rational, informed discussion required by the duty to bargain in good faith.

The Board concluded the respondent failed to comply with the previous order and directed the filing of the determination with the Supreme Court for enforcement.

The complainant union alleged that the grievor was discharged for his union organizing activities, contrary to the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer claimed the discharge was due to poor productivity and a bad attitude.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving that the termination was free from anti-union animus.

The Board noted the timing of the discharge, the lack of prior discipline, and inconsistencies in management's evidence.

The Board ordered the grievor reinstated with full compensation.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer bargained in bad faith contrary to section 14 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer had withdrawn from a joint bargaining structure at the last minute, accepted a settlement for its Montreal plant but not its Bramalea plant, and resurrected a previously settled issue regarding manning after a six-month strike.

The Board found no bad faith in these actions, as the employer was entitled to evaluate its economic interests and reappraise its position.

However, the Board found the employer bargained in bad faith with a second local by refusing to negotiate its proposals until a settlement was reached with the first local.

The employer was ordered to meet and bargain in good faith with the second local.