Joanne L. McMahon

The applicant, a former business agent and secretary/treasurer of the respondent union local, alleged discrimination, harassment, and reprisal on the basis of disability.

He claimed that after disclosing his depression and anxiety, the respondent failed to accommodate him and subjected him to harassing communications and reprisal.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had a disability, his communications did not amount to a request for accommodation that triggered the respondent's duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent's communications were not harassing or reprisal, but rather standard oversight and requests to perform essential duties.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union filed applications for certification to displace the incumbent union.

The incumbent union and an interested party argued the applications should be dismissed due to late delivery to the employer and inaccuracies in the Certificates of Delivery.

The Board found the applicant acted in good faith and intended to deliver the applications on time, but was thwarted by a clerical error with a facsimile number.

The Board exercised its discretion under Rule 44 to relieve against the strict application of the Rules, accepted the application date as March 14, 2000, and directed the opening of the ballot boxes.

The employer applied under sections 1(4) and 64 of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration of related employer status and a finding of a sale of business, which were largely agreed upon by the responding trade unions.

The employer sought to consolidate multiple geographic-specific bargaining units into a single all-employee unit, arguing that an intermingling of employees had occurred following the integration of the acquired businesses.

The Board found that while there was some operational integration and minor personnel movement, it did not constitute the thorough intermingling of employees contemplated by section 64(6) that would necessitate dismantling the existing bargaining structures.

The Board dismissed the employer's request to restructure the bargaining units, concluding that the existing geographic-specific units remained viable and the employer remained bound by the existing collective agreements.

The union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration, while a group of employees applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

The Board determined it was appropriate to consider the first contract application first.

The Board found that the employer engaged in surface bargaining, refused to recognize the union's bargaining authority, and adopted uncompromising positions without reasonable justification.

The employer's conduct, including delaying bargaining and refusing to provide accurate wage information, demonstrated a failure to make reasonable efforts to conclude a collective agreement.

The Board directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration and dismissed the termination application.

One Board Member dissented, arguing the termination application should have been considered first.

The union applied for the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The parties agreed on some provisions of the union's proposed standard form collective agreement, but disputed several articles including geographic scope, payment of wages, sub-contracting, and an industrial fund.

The Board held that the geographic scope could not be expanded beyond the Board's geographic area #17 without the employer's consent, as economic sanctions cannot be used to expand bargaining rights.

However, the Board ordered the inclusion of the union's standard form provisions for the remaining disputed articles, finding no reason to grant the employer special treatment or a competitive advantage over other contractors bound by the standard agreement.

The petitioners requested that their application for termination of bargaining rights be heard prior to the union's previously filed application for direction of the settlement of a first contract by arbitration.

The Board considered its discretion under section 40a(22) of the Labour Relations Act.

Noting that the first contract application had already commenced and three days of evidence had been heard before it was adjourned for mediation, the Board ruled it would be most appropriate to continue hearing the first contract application first.

The termination application was adjourned pending the outcome.

The employer, Knob Hill Farms Limited, requested reconsideration of a Board decision certifying the union, alleging that the union obtained the certificate by fraud under section 58 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer argued that the union failed to disclose its intention to merge with another local union prior to the certification decision.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the union continued to exist as a trade union at the time of certification and that the failure to disclose the impending merger did not constitute a material misrepresentation or fraud.

The complainant filed an unfair labour practice complaint against his union.

In an earlier decision, the Board dismissed most of the complaint but remained seized of the issue regarding the union's publication of a letter retracting its decision to bar the complainant from holding union office.

The union subsequently posted the retraction letter.

The complainant then sought to expand the proceeding to litigate whether the initial decision to bar him from office violated the Labour Relations Act.

The Board declined to inquire into the matter, noting that the penalty had been fully retracted and that litigating a moot issue solely to obtain a declaration of a breach would not serve a useful labour relations purpose.

The remaining aspect of the complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

The respondent employer raised two preliminary objections.

First, it argued the applicant's name did not match the certified trade union.

The Board found this to be a mere technical irregularity and amended the applicant's name.

Second, the respondent argued the application was premature due to pending reconsideration requests regarding the underlying certification.

The Board agreed that the chaotic situation created by the multiple proceedings and the applicant's own challenge to its representation rights needed to be resolved first.

The Board adjourned the application sine die pending the disposition of the other proceedings.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent's seed and feed operations in Blenheim, Ontario.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that its operations fell under federal jurisdiction pursuant to section 45 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act and section 92(10)(c) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Board reviewed the nature of the respondent's operations, which included a feed mill, feed warehouse, and seed cleaning mills.

The Board concluded that these facilities were works declared by Parliament to be for the general advantage of Canada, placing them within exclusive federal jurisdiction.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application for lack of constitutional jurisdiction.