81 total
Steelworkers declared interim exclusive bargaining agent pending resolution of over 200 successor rights applications.
The applicant union sought an interim order declaring it the successor union and exclusive bargaining agent for employees in over 200 pending successor rights applications.
The applications arose from a massive inter-union dispute following the purported merger of various Ontario locals of the RWDSU with the Steelworkers, which was contested by the RWDSU International and the UFCW.
The dispute caused widespread confusion and collective bargaining paralysis, prompting employers and the Minister of Labour to seek clarification on which union to deal with.
The Board granted the interim order, declaring the Steelworkers as the interim exclusive bargaining agent to preserve orderly labour relations and allow the collective bargaining process to function until the main applications are resolved.
Seven department store bargaining units combined into a single unit to reduce fragmentation and facilitate bargaining.
The applicant union applied under section 7 of the Labour Relations Act to combine seven separate store bargaining units of the responding party department store into a single bargaining unit.
The parties had a history of centralized bargaining resulting in nearly identical collective agreements.
The employer opposed the combination, arguing it would cause serious labour relations problems and that the existing units were viable.
The Board found that combining the units would reduce fragmentation and facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining without causing serious labour relations problems, given the centralized nature of the employer's operations and the parties' bargaining history.
The application was granted and the units were combined, with one member dissenting.
Applicant declared successor to bargaining rights of Local 414 following disaffiliation and merger.
The applicant union sought a declaration under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act that it was the successor to the bargaining rights of Local 414 with respect to a bargaining unit employed by the responding party.
The International union opposed the application, arguing that it held the bargaining rights, that the disaffiliation of Local 414 was flawed, and that the formation of the new national union and its merger with the USWA were invalid.
The Board found that Local 414 held the bargaining rights, that the disaffiliation and subsequent merger were completed in substantial compliance with the relevant constitutions, and that the new organization was a trade union.
The Board declined to order a representation vote and declared the applicant to be the successor.
Interim relief granted to maintain status quo and employer neutrality in union representation dispute.
The applicant union sought interim relief in a dispute over bargaining rights at A & P stores.
The Board had previously ordered the status quo maintained regarding local union representation.
The applicant alleged the employer breached this by cancelling leaves of absence for its supporters while maintaining them for the rival union's supporters, and by allowing the rival union to designate new representatives.
The Board granted interim relief, directing that customary union representatives continue to handle workplace issues and ordering the employer to reinstate the cancelled leaves of absence to ensure neutrality pending the final decision on bargaining rights.
Interim order granted to preserve status quo of union representation pending successor rights determination.
The Board considered an application for interim relief in a successor rights dispute involving competing claims by the Steelworkers, the UFCW, and the RWDSU over the representation of employees at New Dominion/A & P stores.
The unions were unable to agree on how to conduct their affairs while the matter was pending.
To preserve orderly labour relations and ensure employees had continued representation by familiar individuals, the Board granted an interim order maintaining the status quo as of July 10, 1993, allowing local store managers to continue dealing with the union representatives they customarily dealt with prior to the dispute.
Union ordered to compensate and employer ordered to reinstate employee following breach of duty of fair representation.
Following a finding that the union violated its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to intervene prior to the applicant's discharge, the Board held a hearing to determine the appropriate remedy.
The Board ordered the extraordinary remedy of reinstating the applicant to his former position with the intervenor employer, finding that the discharge would likely have been avoided but for the union's breach.
The Board also ordered the union to compensate the applicant for nine months of lost wages, reducing the compensation period due to the applicant's failure to fully mitigate his damages and his own contributory conduct.
Board combined northern and southern bargaining units but declined to automatically apply existing collective agreement.
The union applied to combine a newly certified bargaining unit of three service technicians in northern Ontario with an existing bargaining unit of service technicians based in Richmond Hill.
The employer opposed the combination, arguing a lack of community of interest and expressing concern that it would lose the opportunity to negotiate terms for the northern employees, who faced different economic realities.
The Board found that the employees shared a community of interest as they performed identical work and reported to the same manager.
The Board ordered the combination of the bargaining units to facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining and reduce fragmentation.
However, the Board declined to order that the existing collective agreement automatically apply to the northern employees, instead referring the matter back to the parties to negotiate the terms for the newly added employees.
Application to terminate union's bargaining rights following voluntary recognition agreement dismissed.
The applicant, a professional engineer employed by Ontario Hydro, applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent trade union under section 61 of the Labour Relations Act.
The applicant alleged that the union was not entitled to represent the employees at the time it entered into a voluntary recognition agreement with the employer, citing issues with the inclusion of managerial employees, the lack of a separate vote for professional engineers, and alleged improprieties in the ratification vote.
The Board dismissed the application, finding that the ratification vote was fair and appropriate, the inclusion of managerial employees did not invalidate the agreement, and section 6(4) of the Act regarding separate votes for professional engineers did not apply to voluntary recognition agreements.
The Board concluded that the union enjoyed the support of the vast majority of employees, including professional engineers, at the time the agreement was entered into.
Taxi drivers operating under broker banners in Metropolitan Toronto found to be dependent contractors.
The applicant union filed applications for certification to represent taxi drivers operating under the banners of various taxicab brokers in Metropolitan Toronto.
The central issue was whether the drivers were 'dependent contractors' under section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, or independent contractors.
The Board examined the economic relationship between the drivers and the brokers, noting that the drivers derived a substantial portion of their income from dispatched fares and corporate account chits provided by the brokers.
The Board also found that the brokers exercised significant control over the drivers through rules, policies, and the threat of suspension from the dispatch system.
The Board concluded that the drivers were in a position of economic dependence and under an obligation to perform duties for the brokers, more closely resembling the relationship of an employee than that of an independent contractor.
The drivers were therefore found to be dependent contractors.
Scope of past practice evidence in jurisdictional dispute restricted to precast concrete ducts in ICI sector.
In a jurisdictional dispute complaint between the Labourers and the IBEW over the installation of precast concrete duct systems, the parties sought a preliminary ruling on the scope of relevant past practice evidence.
The IBEW argued that evidence should be restricted to the ICI sector but include all types of conduit duct banks.
The Labourers and the employer argued that evidence should be restricted to precast concrete duct systems but not limited to the ICI sector.
The Board ruled that the scope of past practice evidence would be restricted to precast concrete ducts in the ICI sector in Board Area No. 2, finding that expanding the scope would add significant hearing days without corresponding benefit.
Shipbuilding and repair in dry docks is not a business in the construction industry under the Labour Relations Act.
The applicant union sought certification for its traditional craft bargaining unit, arguing that the respondent's shipbuilding and repair business fell within the definition of the construction industry under the Labour Relations Act.
The applicant relied on recent amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which deemed shipbuilding a 'project'.
The Board ruled that repairing or building ships in dry docks does not constitute a business in the construction industry under the Labour Relations Act.
Following this ruling, the applicant withdrew its application with leave.
Board directs union to provide particulars and orders related employer and unfair labour practice matters heard together.
The Ontario Nurses' Association filed applications under sections 1(4) and 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act, along with an unfair labour practice complaint under section 89, against Carecor Health Services Inc. and numerous hospitals.
The union alleged that the hospitals formed Carecor to provide a pool of agency nurses to avoid their collective agreement obligations.
The Board dismissed the allegations under sections 50 and 66 for failing to disclose a prima facie case, but allowed the section 64 complaint to proceed.
The Board directed the union to provide particulars of its allegations and ordered that the section 1(4) application and the remaining section 89 complaint be heard together.
The section 106(2) application was adjourned pending the disposition of the other matters.
Motion to remove union's counsel for conflict of interest dismissed; Board declined jurisdiction on discretionary grounds.
The complainant brought a motion to remove the respondents' counsel, alleging a conflict of interest arising from prior representation.
The Board dismissed the motion, expressing serious doubts about its statutory jurisdiction to regulate the professional conduct of barristers and solicitors, noting that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act protects the right to counsel and specifically exempts lawyers from the tribunal's power to exclude incompetent agents.
Ultimately, the Board declined to entertain the motion on discretionary grounds, finding that the conflict issue was entirely separate from the merits of the duty of fair representation complaint and that determining it would cause undue delay and risk conflicting decisions with the Law Society of Upper Canada or the courts.
Union estopped from claiming voluntary agreements constituted a collective agreement under the Labour Relations Act.
The Society of Ontario Hydro Professional and Administrative Employees filed an application and complaint asserting that its existing agreements with Ontario Hydro constituted a collective agreement under the Labour Relations Act.
Ontario Hydro and an intervener argued that the agreements were not a collective agreement and that the Society was estopped from asserting otherwise.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the doctrine of estoppel could apply to prevent a party from asserting that an agreement is a collective agreement under the Act.
Finding that the Society had historically represented to Hydro that their agreements were outside the Act, and that Hydro had relied on these representations in entering into the 1983 Master Agreement, the Board concluded that the Society was estopped from now claiming the agreements constituted a collective agreement.
The application and complaint were dismissed.
Union permitted to amend applicant name on certification application, but fresh notice to employees required.
The applicant union filed an application for certification under the name of its Toronto Joint Board, but the membership evidence submitted was in the name of the international union.
The Board granted the applicant's unopposed request to amend the application to name the international union as the applicant.
However, the Board declined to proceed with the application without first providing fresh notice to the affected employees, emphasizing that employees have a right to notice and an opportunity to participate before a decision is made.
The Board directed the Registrar to issue new notices reflecting the amended applicant name and extended the terminal date.
Applicant found to be a trade union; presence of managerial members does not bar certification.
The applicant, an association representing professional and administrative employees of Ontario Hydro, applied for certification as a trade union.
The respondent and objecting employees argued that the applicant was not a 'trade union' under the Labour Relations Act because its membership included persons exercising managerial functions, and that its certification was barred by section 13 due to employer support.
The Board held that the statutory definition of 'trade union' does not mean an organization of employees only, and the presence of managerial members does not deprive an organization of trade union status.
The Board further held that the involvement of allegedly managerial persons in the applicant's affairs and the applicant's use of employer facilities under a long-standing voluntary relationship did not constitute employer support within the meaning of section 13.
The preliminary status questions were resolved in the applicant's favour, and the matter was directed to be relisted for hearing on the remaining issues.
Board grants municipal-wide bargaining unit for cleaning contractor and dismisses employer's intimidation allegations.
The applicant union applied for certification for employees of the respondent cleaning contractor.
The employer argued that the bargaining unit should be limited to a specific street location, while the union sought a municipal-wide unit.
The Board applied its usual practice and granted a municipal-wide unit, finding no compelling reason to depart from it despite the employer being in the contract cleaning industry.
The Board also dismissed the employer's allegations that the union intimidated employees or misrepresented job security, finding no prima facie case of a section 70 violation.
A certificate was issued to the applicant.
University violated Labour Relations Act by restricting staff association's established use of internal mail for union organizing.
The complainant union (CUPE) alleged that the respondent university violated section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by prohibiting the University of Toronto Staff Association (UTSA) from using the university's internal mail service to distribute CUPE organizing materials.
UTSA had historically enjoyed unrestricted access to the mail system.
The university argued that permitting the distribution of union organizing materials would constitute employer support for a trade union, violating sections 13 and 64 of the Act.
The Board held that the university's restriction of an existing practice constituted interference with the union's rights.
The Board declared a violation of section 64 and directed the university to permit UTSA access to the internal mail service in the manner previously enjoyed.
Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed; union reasonably relied on legal advice to settle grievance.
The complainant alleged that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by settling her grievance regarding a lateral transfer without her consent and by refusing to proceed to arbitration.
The union had relied on the advice of its legal counsel, who assessed that an arbitrator was unlikely to grant the relief sought by the complainant.
The Board found that the union did not act in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, as its decision to settle was based on reasonable legal advice and an objective assessment of the grievance's merits.
The complaint was dismissed.
Board refuses to dismiss unfair labour practice complaint for delay and applies reverse onus provision.
The complainant alleged that his former employer and union conspired to dismiss him, contrary to the Labour Relations Act.
The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the complaint should be dismissed due to delay and res judicata.
The majority of the Board refused to dismiss the complaint on the basis of delay, finding that the complainant only had suspicions until the alleged conspiracy was made public, and that res judicata did not apply.
The Board unanimously ruled that the reverse onus provision in subsection 89(5) applied, as the complaint involved allegations of anti-union animus affecting employment.
The Board ordered the employer to proceed first with its evidence.
