John Paul Wearing

The complainant, a senior mechanic, was suspended twice by his employer: first for refusing to shut off a fan that was interfering with a smoke extractor, and second for refusing to wear newly issued reusable ear plugs and substituting disposable ones.

He filed complaints alleging the discipline was a reprisal for acting in compliance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaints, finding that the complainant was disciplined for insubordination rather than for exercising his rights under the Act.

The Board held that the Act does not entitle an employee to unilaterally disregard employer instructions or substitute protective devices without following the statutory procedures for reporting defects or refusing unsafe work.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a unit of foremen employed by the respondent.

The respondent argued that the foremen exercised managerial functions and were therefore excluded from the definition of 'employee' under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board examined the duties and responsibilities of the foremen, including their role in disciplining employees, responding to grievances, and assessing probationary employees.

The majority of the Board concluded that the foremen exercised true managerial functions and dismissed the application for certification.

One Board member dissented, finding the foremen's duties to be merely supervisory.

The applicant union applied to displace the incumbent union as the bargaining agent for the respondent's plant employees.

The applicant won the representation vote.

The incumbent union argued that the application should be dismissed under section 13 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the employer provided support to the applicant.

The incumbent also argued that the vote was invalid because the employer failed to implement an arbitration award requiring the discharge of employees who did not pay union dues.

The Board found no evidence of employer support for the applicant and concluded that the employer's response to the arbitration award did not invalidate the vote.

The Board certified the applicant union.

The applicant union applied for certification.

An employee association intervened, seeking certification as a rival trade union.

The Board found that the intervener was formed by a small group of employees opposed to unionization, and that the employer's plant manager had provided them with a list of employee names and telephone numbers to assist in forming the association.

The Board held that this constituted employer support within the meaning of section 13 of the Labour Relations Act.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the intervener's application for certification and directed a representation vote for the applicant union.

The complainants, a group of employees, alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation under the Labour Relations Act by executing a collective agreement on terms that a narrow majority of the bargaining unit had rejected in a ratification vote.

The union had accepted the employer's final offer because it lacked the bargaining strength to negotiate better terms, the employees were unwilling to strike, and the union feared losing its bargaining rights entirely.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union's decision was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The Board held that the Act does not strictly bind a union to the results of a discretionary ratification vote, and the union reasonably weighed the collective bargaining realities in deciding to accept the mediocre agreement rather than abandon the unit.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the respondent was a successor employer following the sale of a business and was therefore bound by the existing collective agreement.

The respondent admitted the sale occurred but argued the Board had general discretion under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act to declare it not bound by the agreement.

The Board rejected this argument, finding that section 55 is declaratory in nature and automatically flows bargaining rights through to the successor employer, subject only to specific statutory exceptions.

The Board declared the respondent bound by the collective agreement.

The applicant, Cambridge Employees' Association, applied for certification to represent the respondent's employees.

The intervener, another trade union, also applied for certification and argued that the applicant lacked trade union status or was barred from certification under section 12 of the Labour Relations Act due to employer support.

The Board found that the applicant had taken the necessary steps to constitute itself as a trade union.

The Board also found insufficient evidence to support the intervener's claim of employer support, despite the applicant's president having obtained the name of their legal counsel from the respondent's general manager.

The intervener's application was dismissed for lack of sufficient membership evidence, and a certificate was issued to the applicant.

During a union certification representation vote, a segregated ballot was inadvertently opened, revealing an employee's choice.

The employee, who was related to management, subsequently faced pressure from the employer and requested a new vote.

The union argued that the employer's knowledge of the employee's support would impede a free second vote and requested certification under section 7a of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered a second representation vote, emphasizing the paramount importance of the secret ballot and finding that the isolated family flare-up did not justify certification without a vote.