81 total
Union did not breach duty of fair representation by withdrawing grievance in complex global settlement.
The complainant, a former Dominion store employee, alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by withdrawing his lay-off grievance.
The withdrawal was part of a complex global settlement negotiated by the union following the conversion of Dominion stores to Mr. Grocer franchises.
The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union balanced competing interests and made a reasonable decision to abandon certain grievances to secure a settlement, which did not constitute arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.
Union found to have abandoned bargaining rights for part-time employees through years of disuse.
The complainant union filed a complaint alleging contraventions of the Labour Relations Act.
The central issue was whether the union had abandoned its bargaining rights for part-time employees.
Although the original 1974 certificate and successive collective agreements did not explicitly exclude part-time employees, the collective agreement had never been applied to them.
The union had not collected dues from part-time employees or applied seniority, grievance, or health and welfare provisions to them.
The Board found that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights for part-time employees through disuse and failure to assert those rights over many years.
Employer's unfair labour practice complaint and prosecution application dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.
The employer filed an unfair labour practice complaint and an application for consent to prosecute the union and its counsel, alleging they misled an arbitrator to obtain an adjournment.
The employer sought to consolidate these matters with earlier complaints filed by the union.
The Board refused consolidation, noting the matters were discrete and consolidation would conflict with the union counsel's role.
The Board then dismissed the employer's complaint and application without a full hearing, finding them to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process designed to harass the union and gain a tactical advantage in other pending matters.
Store conversions constituted a sale of business; union scope clauses amended to resolve conflicting bargaining rights.
The applicant union brought applications under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act following the conversion of several New Dominion stores to A & P stores.
The Board found that the conversions constituted a transfer of part of a business, making A & P the successor employer.
To resolve the conflict between the province-wide bargaining rights of the applicant and the existing rights of the intervener unions at the converted stores, the Board amended the applicant's scope clause to exclude the converted stores by street address and added a clarity note to the interveners' scope clauses to preserve their bargaining rights at those specific locations, without restricting their broader geographic scope.
Motion to add corporate principals as related employers denied; section 1(4) not for deep pockets.
The applicant trade unions sought to add Conrad Black and Hollinger Inc. as respondents to related employer and unfair labour practice applications involving Willett Foods Limited and various franchisees.
A previous panel of the Board had already dismissed a similar request by one of the unions to add Black and a predecessor corporation.
The Board applied principles analogous to res judicata and issue estoppel, finding that the new allegations did not materially alter the basis of the claims.
The Board reaffirmed that section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act is not intended merely to provide access to 'deep pockets' absent allegations of a transfer of work or other attempts to frustrate collective bargaining.
The request to add the respondents was denied, and the complaints against them were dismissed.
Board issues procedural directions for service and adding respondents in complex multi-party proceeding.
In a complex proceeding involving nearly two hundred parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued procedural directions regarding the service of documents and the addition of respondents.
The Board ruled that service on a party's agent or counsel would be sufficient, and established a procedure for amending applications to add respondents by analogy to the Board's Rules of Procedure, requiring the applicant to provide amended filings and notice to all parties.
Employer's refusal to provide union with a copy of the benefit Master Plan violated section 64.
The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to provide a physical copy of the Master Plan detailing welfare benefits under the collective agreement.
The employer argued that providing access to the document at its head office and answering questions by phone was sufficient.
The Board held that the refusal to provide a copy interfered with the union's ability to represent its members and fulfill its duty of fair representation under section 68.
The Board also declined to defer the matter to arbitration, noting that the complaint raised a novel issue regarding statutory rights under section 64.
The employer was directed to provide the union with a copy of the Master Plan.
Union certification application dismissed due to unreliable membership evidence and undisclosed irregularities by card collectors.
The applicant union applied for certification.
During the proceedings, it was revealed that two major collectors of membership cards had deliberately misled the union president regarding the direct payment of the $1.00 initiation fee by certain employees.
The union president had signed the Form 9 declaration without noting these exceptions.
The Board found that the reports from these two collectors, who gathered over 80% of the cards, were unreliable.
Consequently, the Board could not be satisfied that the union had the requisite 45% membership support for a representation vote or 55% for outright certification.
The application was dismissed without a bar.
Unfair labour practice complaint dismissed; employer's proposals constituted hard bargaining rather than bad faith.
The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer bargained in bad faith during negotiations following a lengthy and unsuccessful strike.
The union argued that the employer's proposals, which included a less generous monetary offer than before the strike and a demand that the union withdraw pending unfair labour practice complaints, were illegal and designed to avoid a collective agreement.
The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer was engaging in hard bargaining based on its superior bargaining power.
While the Board noted that an employer cannot use its bargaining power to compel the withdrawal of statutory complaints, it found that the union had not unequivocally refused to negotiate the issue or demanded its removal from the table, but had instead offered its own compromises.
Board denies reconsideration of union literature distribution ruling but modifies required employee notice.
The respondents requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision that found their blanket prohibition on the distribution of union literature on store premises to be an unfair labour practice.
The Board declined to reconsider the merits of the case, reaffirming that its reconsideration power is not a forum for re-arguing decided issues.
However, the Board modified the required Notice to Employees to better reflect the employer's stated policy on casual conversation, while finding that the employer's previous letters prohibiting all solicitation violated section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.
Union did not breach duty of fair representation by having International President ratify agreement without employee vote.
The complainants, employees of The T. Eaton Company Limited, alleged that the respondent union violated the Labour Relations Act by failing to hold a ratification vote before accepting a collective agreement.
The union, facing a prolonged strike and the potential loss of bargaining rights, had its International President ratify the agreement after conducting a back-to-work vote among striking employees only.
The Board found that the union did not act in bad faith or violate its duty of fair representation, as it was not legally obligated to hold a ratification vote and acted to protect its bargaining rights.
The complaints were dismissed.
Complaint of bad faith bargaining dismissed; employer's prior offer was extinguished by intervening strike.
The complainant union alleged that the respondent company bargained in bad faith by refusing to sign a collective agreement based on a May 2 offer that the union purported to accept on October 25, after a lengthy strike.
The union also alleged that the company's discharge and suspension of several employees on October 25 was an unlawful attempt to avoid a collective agreement.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the May 2 offer had been extinguished by the passage of time and the intervening strike.
The Board also found that the disciplinary actions were a lawful attempt to make the discharges inarbitrable under the anticipated collective agreement, rather than an unlawful attempt to avoid an agreement.
Board refuses to add parent corporations and individual shareholders as respondents for 'deep pocket' recovery.
The applicant union sought to add parent corporations and individual shareholders as respondents to ongoing section 1(4) and 89 proceedings against the employer.
The union alleged that these entities and individuals controlled the employer and sought to add them to ensure recovery of any claims.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the request, holding that section 1(4) is intended to preserve bargaining rights, not to provide a 'deep pocket' for recovery where there has been no transfer of work or erosion of bargaining rights.
The Board also found no exceptional circumstances to affix personal liability under section 89.
Employer violated statutory freeze by contracting out cleaning and centralizing alterations work during certification application.
The complainant trade union alleged that the respondent employer violated the statutory freeze period under section 79(2) and the prohibition against union interference under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by laying off several employees shortly after an application for certification was filed.
The Board found that the layoffs of sales staff and receiving employees were part of a pre-existing program or a continuation of business as usual, and thus did not violate the freeze.
However, the layoffs of cleaning and alterations staff, which resulted from contracting out and centralization decisions made after the freeze began, constituted an unlawful alteration of employee privileges.
The section 64 complaint was dismissed as the layoffs were motivated by bona fide business reasons.
Employer committed unfair labour practice by failing to rehire union supporters after department closure.
The complainant union alleged that the respondent company terminated the employment of six grievors in violation of the Labour Relations Act due to anti-union animus following an unsuccessful certification vote.
The Board found that the termination of one grievor, who had a long history of poor performance, was not motivated by anti-union animus and dismissed that portion of the complaint.
However, the Board found that the failure to reassign or rehire the other five grievors after their department was closed was motivated by anti-union animus on the part of the general manager.
The Board directed the parties to attempt to agree on the appropriate remedies for the successful grievors.
Tanner Industries declared a successor employer after acquiring equipment and customer contacts from a defunct manufacturer.
The applicant union sought declarations that Tanner Industries was a successor and related employer to Do-Tan Manufacturing Limited under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.
Do-Tan had ceased operations and its assets were sold off.
J.R. Tanner, a former principal of Do-Tan, secured customer commitments and transferred equipment to a new company, Tanner Industries, owned by his family.
The Board found that a definable part of Do-Tan's business, including equipment, know-how, and customer contacts, was transferred to Tanner Industries.
The Board declared Tanner Industries a successor employer bound by the collective agreement, but declined to exercise its discretion to make a related employer declaration.
Board issues related employer declaration for franchisor and franchisee due to franchisor's real economic control.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board considered applications arising from the franchising of former Dominion stores to Mr. Grocer franchisees.
The union sought a related employer declaration under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, arguing that Dominion, its subsidiary Willett Foods, and the franchisee Penmarkay Foods were under common control and direction.
Penmarkay sought to terminate the union's bargaining rights under s. 63(5), claiming a substantial change in the business.
The Board dismissed the s. 63(5) application, finding no fundamental change in the work performed.
The Board granted the s. 1(4) declaration, finding that Willett exercised real economic control over Penmarkay through the franchise agreement, which dictated margins, rent, and other costs, effectively controlling labour relations.
The declaration preserved the consolidated bargaining structure.
Reconsideration of union certification denied; employer cannot belatedly amend employee list after count announced.
The employer requested reconsideration of a Board decision certifying the union, arguing that an employee was mistakenly omitted from the list of employees and that objecting employees were denied natural justice because they were not explicitly told they had to attend the hearing.
The Board denied the request, finding that the employer could not belatedly amend its list after the membership count was announced, and that the Board's standard notice to employees clearly stated the consequences of failing to attend the hearing to support a statement of desire.
Application for certification without a vote dismissed as allegations did not establish a prima facie case.
The applicant union sought certification without a vote under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act following a representation vote in which it did not obtain majority support.
The union alleged improper conduct by the respondent employer and the intervener association.
The Board found that the allegations, even if proven, did not make out a prima facie case for certification without a vote.
As the union did not seek any other remedy, the application for certification was dismissed with a six-month bar.
Employer committed unfair labour practices by paying non-union transferees higher wages to undermine union before decertification vote.
The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer engaged in a pattern of anti-union conduct, including contracting out bargaining unit work and transferring non-union employees to the unionized plant at higher wage rates during the period leading up to a representation vote on the termination of bargaining rights.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's actions, which also included tabling a discriminatory wage offer, violated the Labour Relations Act by undermining the union and interfering with the employees' ability to vote freely.
The Board ordered the employer to cease contracting out, stop discriminatory transfers, table a non-discriminatory wage offer, and directed that a new representation vote be held after three months.
