6 total
Full-time fire alarm technicians are excluded from the Labour Relations Act; part-time technician may proceed with termination.
The applicants, four fire alarm technicians, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.
The union raised a jurisdictional challenge, arguing the applicants were 'full-time fire fighters' under the Fire Departments Act and thus excluded from the Labour Relations Act.
The Board found that the three full-time technicians performed duties integral to fire protection and fell within the statutory definition of full-time fire fighters, excluding them from the Act.
However, the Board held that the single part-time technician was not excluded and allowed the termination application to proceed with respect to her alone.
A person producing documents under a subpoena duces tecum need not be sworn or cross-examined.
During a hearing, the applicant sought to prove documents produced under a subpoena duces tecum without calling the person who produced them as a witness, thereby avoiding cross-examination.
The Board initially ruled the documents must be proved by calling the person as a witness.
Upon reconsideration, the Board reviewed the historical and legal distinction between the ad testificandum and duces tecum aspects of a subpoena.
The Board revoked its previous ruling, holding that a person producing documents pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum does not need to be sworn as a witness and is not subject to cross-examination.
Employers committed unfair labour practices by refusing to disclose wage rates and bargaining directly with striking employees.
The complainant union alleged that the respondent employers committed unfair labour practices during a lawful strike.
The union claimed the employers bargained in bad faith by refusing to disclose the actual wage rates of bargaining unit employees and by bargaining directly with striking employees.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employers violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by withholding the wage information, which was necessary for rational and informed collective bargaining.
The Board also found that one of the employers, Globe, violated sections 64 and 67(1) by engaging in direct negotiations with a group of employees, thereby undermining the union's exclusive bargaining rights.
The Board ordered the employers to cease direct bargaining, disclose the wage rates, and resume mediation.
Board has jurisdiction over work assignment dispute where collective agreements lack mutual dispute-settlement mechanism.
The complainants requested a direction under section 91 of the Act regarding a work assignment dispute on a pipeline project.
The respondent unions raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 91(14) because the collective agreements required referring such disputes to a mutually selected tribunal.
The Board found that while one collective agreement contained a specific jurisdictional dispute mechanism, the other did not.
Therefore, the collective agreements did not establish a mutual dispute-settlement mechanism that would exclude the Board's jurisdiction.
The preliminary objection was dismissed and the matter was listed for a hearing on the merits.
Related employer application dismissed; section 1(4) is not intended for consolidating established bargaining units.
The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the municipal employer and its non-profit housing corporation were a single employer, effectively requesting the consolidation of two separate bargaining units.
The Board noted that section 1(4) was intended to protect established bargaining rights from being eroded by the creation of separate corporate entities, not to serve as a tool for consolidating existing bargaining units.
The Board found that the union was attempting to achieve through a section 1(4) application what it could not achieve at the bargaining table, and that granting the application would prejudice the employer.
The application was dismissed.
Displacement applications for certification dismissed as untimely due to collective agreement extensions under the Inflation Restraint Act.
The applicant unions filed pre-hearing displacement applications for certification.
The intervener incumbent union argued the applications were untimely because the Inflation Restraint Act extended the existing collective agreements, thereby closing the 'open period' under the Labour Relations Act.
The Board held that section 13 of the Inflation Restraint Act extended the collective agreements beyond their normal expiry dates, rendering the applications untimely.
The Board also rejected the argument that this extension violated the freedom of association under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The applications were dismissed.
