Kevin Whitaker

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) brought an application under the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act, alleging that a contract between the Ontario Science Centre and a packaging company for the construction of crates constituted a transfer of part of the Crown's undertaking.

The union argued that its bargaining rights should follow the work performed by the subcontractor.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the packaging company had merely acquired the right to supply goods and services to the Crown using its own undertaking, which did not amount to a transfer of part of the Crown's undertaking.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights, having previously withdrawn a similar application when it appeared she had insufficient support.

The respondent union brought a motion requesting the Board to exercise its discretion under section 105(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act to dismiss the second application and impose a bar on further applications, arguing that the representation issue had already been tested.

The Board dismissed the union's motion, finding that the representation issue was not truly determined in the first application and that balancing the interests of labour relations stability and the right to test representation favoured allowing the second application to proceed.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated the Labour Relations Act by terminating the grievor's employment due to his involvement in a union organizing campaign.

The employer maintained that the grievor was discharged for just cause, specifically a history of poor performance and minor misconduct following a final warning.

The Board found that the employer's concerns about the grievor's performance were legitimate and sincerely held.

The Board concluded that the decision to terminate was not motivated by anti-union animus and dismissed the complaint.

The complainants, academic employees at Sheridan College, alleged that their union (OPSEU) breached its duty of fair representation under section 76 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act during the 1984 negotiations.

They claimed the union bargained in bad faith with the employer and intentionally misled the membership regarding its bargaining demands, specifically concerning a workload formula, to precipitate a strike.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint.

The Board held that employees lack status to enforce the union's duty to bargain in good faith with the employer.

Furthermore, the Board found that the union's bargaining tactics, including its refusal to receive a late offer from the employer to avoid triggering a mandatory vote that would disrupt a scheduled strike vote, did not constitute arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct toward the employees.

The Board also concluded that the union's communications with the membership did not amount to fundamental misrepresentation.

The complainant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing his request to be represented by his own counsel at an arbitration hearing, with the costs to be paid by the union.

The Board found no evidence of ill will, bad faith, or discrimination by the union's executive board or membership in their handling of the grievance.

The union had followed its normal procedures and had appointed experienced labour counsel to represent the complainant.

The Board dismissed the complaint, noting that allowing a complainant to unilaterally select counsel at the union's expense would do violence to the legislative scheme establishing the union as the exclusive bargaining agent.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees applied for certification to represent employees at eight community recreation centres in the City of Toronto.

The Board had to determine whether the City of Toronto or the individual community centres were the true employer, and whether there should be one municipal-wide bargaining unit or eight separate units.

Applying the York Condominium criteria, the Board found that the boards of management had no legal status separate from the City, making the City of Toronto the employer.

Applying the Usarco tests, the Board concluded that the employees at each centre lacked a community of interest with those at other centres, and therefore eight separate bargaining units were appropriate.

One Board member dissented, arguing for a single municipal-wide unit.

The applicant sought certification as a bargaining agent.

As it had not previously been found to be a trade union, the Board held a hearing on this threshold issue.

The evidence showed that while the applicant had drafted and approved a constitution, it had failed to elect officers in accordance with that constitution, nor had it ratified the officers acclaimed prior to the constitution's adoption.

Applying the five-step test from Associated Hebrew Schools of Toronto, the Board found that the failure to have properly elected or authorized officers meant the applicant was not a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1)(p) of the Labour Relations Act.

The application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a unit of employees at the respondent's restaurant.

The incumbent union did not oppose the application and abandoned its bargaining rights.

An intervener union initially alleged employer support for the applicant but later withdrew its intervention and abandoned its opposition following a settlement.

The Board found that the applicant had established sufficient membership support and, given the withdrawal of the intervener and the lack of compelling evidence of employer support, exercised its discretion under section 7(2) of the Labour Relations Act to certify the applicant without a representation vote.