Joseph Carrier

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of objecting employees filed petition cards expressing opposition to the union.

The union challenged the voluntariness of these petition cards, arguing they were tainted by an earlier petition circulated in circumstances that might have created a perception of management involvement.

The majority of the Board found that the employer's behaviour was restrained and there was no evidence of management involvement in the origination or circulation of the petitions.

The Board concluded the petition cards represented a voluntary expression of employee wishes and directed a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, finding the second petition tainted by the flaws of the first.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Ethyl Canada, Inc. and F.I.R.M., a mechanical contractor, constituted a single employer.

The union alleged that Ethyl was using F.I.R.M. to erode the bargaining unit's work jurisdiction over supplementary maintenance.

The Board found that while the two entities had a close relationship, F.I.R.M. was not a mere instrumentality of Ethyl, and Ethyl had a long-standing practice of subcontracting such work.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to issue a related employer declaration, noting the potential for jurisdictional disputes and the union's delay in bringing the application.

The applicant union filed an application under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act seeking a related employer declaration concerning Ethyl Canada, Inc. and its mechanical subcontractor, F.I.R.M. The respondents sought a preliminary ruling to dismiss the application without hearing further evidence, arguing that the application could not succeed due to F.I.R.M.'s pre-existing bargaining rights and the applicant's delay.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to dismiss the application at the preliminary stage, finding that the issues of delay and pre-existing bargaining rights go to the heart of the section 1(4) application and should be determined after the union has had an opportunity to present its full case.

The applicant union filed a new application for certification after withdrawing a previous application due to an irregularity in membership evidence.

The respondent employer argued that the new application was untimely and that the previous irregularity tainted the fresh membership evidence, requesting a representation vote.

The Board found no intention to mislead in the prior application and noted that fresh, untainted membership evidence was filed.

The Board declined to direct a representation vote and granted the certificate.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer violated the statutory freeze under section 70(1) of the Labour Relations Act by discharging an employee without just cause, and violated the Occupational Health and Safety Act by discharging another employee for refusing unsafe work.

The Board dismissed the section 70 complaint, holding that the statutory freeze preserves the employer's right to conduct business as before, which includes the right to discharge employees for normal business reasons not motivated by anti-union sentiment.

The Board also dismissed the health and safety complaint, finding that the employee did not have reasonable grounds to believe the work was unsafe and did not actually refuse the work for safety reasons.

The complainant union alleged that the grievor was discharged for his union organizing activities, contrary to the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer claimed the discharge was due to poor productivity and a bad attitude.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving that the termination was free from anti-union animus.

The Board noted the timing of the discharge, the lack of prior discipline, and inconsistencies in management's evidence.

The Board ordered the grievor reinstated with full compensation.