44 total
Application to terminate bargaining rights dismissed as voluntary union counter-petition reduced applicant support below 45 per cent.
The applicants applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.
The union filed a counter-petition signed by employees who wished to continue being represented by the union, which included signatures of employees who had previously signed the applicants' petition.
The applicants alleged the counter-petition was not voluntary due to perceived employer support and undue influence by the union.
The Board found no evidence of employer support for the counter-petition and concluded the union's conduct did not impair the employees' ability to voluntarily express their wishes.
As the voluntary counter-petition reduced the applicants' support below the required 45 per cent, the application was dismissed.
Request for reconsideration dismissed; notice to union was sufficient for employees affected by seniority restoration.
The complainants successfully brought a duty of fair representation complaint against their union, resulting in an order restoring their lost seniority.
A group of employees whose relative seniority was adversely affected by this restoration requested a reconsideration, arguing they were denied natural justice because they did not receive notice of the original hearing.
The Board dismissed the request, holding that the objecting employees were allied in interest with the union regarding the substantive issue.
Notice to the union, as their statutory bargaining agent, was sufficient notice to the employees themselves.
Sale of business found where subsidiary took over parent's store leases and continued retail food operations.
The applicant union alleged a sale of a business from Steinberg to Yesteryear under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively that they were related employers under section 1(4).
Steinberg closed two stores and transferred the leases and some assets to Yesteryear, a wholly owned subsidiary, which reopened them as warehouse-style stores with new employees.
The respondents argued the union was estopped from bringing the application because it had engaged in negotiations for a separate collective agreement with Yesteryear.
The Board found no waiver or estoppel, as the union made no promise not to exercise its statutory rights.
On the merits, the Board found a sale of a business occurred, as Yesteryear occupied the same premises and continued a substantially similar retail food business.
Yesteryear was declared bound by the predecessor's collective agreement.
Certification application dismissed as proposed bargaining unit was inappropriately limited to one division.
The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees in the respondent's flooring division.
The respondent argued the bargaining unit should include all trades employed on the date of application, encompassing both its flooring and roofing divisions.
The Board found that the applicant did not have craft union status and evaluated the appropriate bargaining unit under section 6(1) of the Labour Relations Act.
Given the interchangeability of employees between the divisions and the potential for jurisdictional disputes in the construction industry, the Board determined the appropriate unit must include both the roofing and flooring divisions.
As the applicant had membership support of less than thirty-five percent in this broader unit, the application for certification was dismissed.
Page 3 of 3 (44 cases)3/3
