Kelvin Stanley Stephen Kucey

The applicants filed a complaint alleging that the union breached the Labour Relations Act by providing insufficient notice for a ratification vote, giving misleading information, and applying undue pressure to accept the contract.

The union brought a motion to dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board found that the facts pleaded, even if true, did not establish a violation of the Act.

The notice period was not unduly short, and there were no facts pleaded to show that employees were denied an ample opportunity to vote.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification of a single retail store location.

The responding employer argued that a single store unit was inappropriate due to the frequent interchange of employees among its six Toronto-area stores and centralized training and buying practices, proposing instead a municipal-wide unit.

The Board applied the Hospital for Sick Children test and found that the single location unit would not cause serious labour relations problems.

The Board granted interim certification for the single store unit, pending the resolution of disputed supervisory classifications.

The applicant applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

At the hearing to determine the voluntariness of the petition filed in support of the application, the applicant provided evidence of the petition's preparation but failed to provide evidence regarding its circulation, continuity of carriage, or the circumstances under which each signature was collected.

The union brought a non-suit motion.

The Board granted the non-suit motion and dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet its onus to prove the petition represented the voluntary wishes of the employees.

The applicant employer sought restrictions on picketing at a non-struck grocery store located in a shopping mall, pursuant to section 11.1(5) of the Labour Relations Act.

The union, engaged in a lawful strike at other locations, picketed the receiving dock, forcing delivery trucks to unload across the parking lot.

The Board found that while the picketing did not completely disrupt the store's operations, the resulting unloading process across a large, icy parking lot created unsafe working conditions.

The Board held this constituted "undue disruption" and concluded that restrictions on the distance over which unloading occurred were appropriate to ensure safety, though it declined to restrict a two-hour delay between trucks that had been agreed to by the parties.

During a lawful strike by retail grocery employees, the company closed its struck stores but attempted to remove perishable goods using personnel from its head office and non-struck stores.

The union applied for a declaration that the company used prohibited replacement workers, while the company applied for restrictions on picketing to allow the removal of the goods.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the company violated section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act by using prohibited replacement workers to perform bargaining unit work.

The Board dismissed the company's application for picketing restrictions, finding insufficient evidence that the peaceful picketing caused undue disruption to the company's operations within the meaning of section 11.1.

The company and the union filed cross-applications during an ongoing legal strike.

The union alleged the company violated section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act by using replacement workers, while the company sought restrictions on picketing under section 11.1 to remove perishable inventory.

The Board found the company violated section 73.1 and ordered it to cease and desist and post the decision.

The Board dismissed the company's request for picketing restrictions, finding no undue disruption and noting the company's own conduct, including its use of prohibited replacement workers to pack the products, weighed against exercising discretion in its favour.

The applicant filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer contravened section 67 of the Labour Relations Act by issuing a one-day suspension.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to inquire into the complaint, finding that the dispute primarily concerned work practices and regulations rather than the exercise of statutory rights.

Noting that the parties had an established collective bargaining relationship and that an arbitrator had broader jurisdiction to resolve the issues under the collective agreement, the Board deferred the matter to arbitration and adjourned the application sine die.

The applicant union sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to reinstate an employee who was allegedly discharged for his involvement in a union organizing drive.

The responding employer claimed the employee was discharged for covering up a theft.

In its first decision interpreting the new interim relief power, the Board established a test requiring an arguable case on the merits and a balancing of the harm to both parties.

Finding that the discharge of a union organizer has a severe chilling effect on an organizing campaign that cannot easily be remedied later, the Board concluded the balance of harm favoured the applicant.

The Board ordered the employee's interim reinstatement pending the final disposition of the unfair labour practice complaint, but denied the request for interim compensation.