Jim Hassell

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the responding party employer violated the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by terminating two employees who were key union organizers.

The employer claimed the employees were terminated for 'time theft' related to taking unauthorized smoking breaks outside.

The Board found that the employees had legitimate work duties outside and that the employer's investigation was rushed and inadequate.

The Board concluded that the terminations were motivated, at least in part, by anti-union animus and ordered the employees reinstated with compensation.

The union applied for certification to represent electricians working on a construction site where the respondent was the general contractor.

After the original electrical subcontractor went bankrupt, the respondent made an interim arrangement with the electricians to continue working at an hourly rate until a new subcontractor was found.

The Board found that during this interim period, the electricians were dependent contractors and therefore employees of the respondent for the purposes of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board granted the certification application.

However, the Board dismissed the union's unfair labour practice complaint, finding that the subsequent lay-off of the electricians was due to the hiring of a new subcontractor and not motivated by anti-union animus.

The union applied for a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that three fish distribution companies—Booth Fisheries, Van Home Fish Distributors, and Groupe La Mer—constitute a single employer.

The Board found that the companies were under the common control and direction of the same individual and engaged in associated or related activities.

Because bargaining unit work had been diverted from the unionized company to the newly created non-unionized company, the Board exercised its discretion to grant the related employer declaration to prevent the erosion of bargaining rights.

The respondent employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the union's application for certification and impose a bar on future applications, arguing that the union had filed six applications for substantially the same group of employees in two months.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion under section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act to dismiss the application and impose a bar.

The Board found that while the union's slipshod manner of filing and withdrawing applications was not condoned, the mere frequency of the applications in these circumstances did not constitute an abuse of process or warrant depriving employees of their right to trade union representation.