D. I. Wakely

The employer applied for a declaration and direction under section 92 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that union members engaged in an unlawful strike through a concerted refusal to work overtime.

The parties reached a written agreement to resolve the matter.

The Board issued a consent order declaring the overtime ban an unlawful strike, directing the union and its officers to cease and desist from encouraging the ban, and requiring the posting of a notice to employees.

The Board also provided commentary emphasizing that concerted refusals to work overtime, even when overtime is voluntary under a collective agreement, constitute unlawful strikes.

The applicant employee association applied for certification.

The intervener union challenged the application, alleging improprieties in the membership evidence and the Form 9 declaration, as well as employer interference.

The Board found that the Form 9 declarant did not make the necessary reasonable inquiries and that the amended Form 9 contained material misrepresentations regarding the collection of membership cards and fees.

Consequently, the Board rejected the Form 9 declarations as improper and unreliable.

Without a valid Form 9, the membership evidence was given no weight, and the application for certification was dismissed.

In an application for certification, the intervener union filed allegations of misconduct.

The respondent employer brought a preliminary motion demanding further particulars of the allegations.

The Board reviewed the legal and labour relations considerations for requiring particulars, noting the need for natural justice and avoiding prejudicial delay.

The Board directed the intervener to provide specific particulars regarding dates, times, places, and persons involved in the alleged meetings and incidents, and adjourned the hearing on the merits.

The applicant union sought to terminate the bargaining rights of the incumbent union and apply for certification to represent employees at food-service outlets at Pearson International Airport.

The incumbent union had entered into voluntary recognition agreements with a new concession operator, which were ratified by the employees.

The applicant argued these agreements should be set aside under section 60(1) and section 46(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board dismissed the applications, finding that the employees had freely ratified the agreements and that the incumbent union had established it represented a majority of the employees at the time the agreements were entered into.

The applicant union sought to terminate the bargaining rights of the incumbent union, Local 1000A, and to certify itself as the bargaining agent for employees of a food-service contractor at Pearson International Airport.

The incumbent union had negotiated a new collective agreement with the successor employer, York County Foods, which was ratified by the employees.

The applicant argued the agreement should be set aside under section 60(1) of the Labour Relations Act because it contained a compulsory membership clause and the union had not established majority support.

The Board dismissed the applications, finding that the incumbent union had fairly established its majority support and that the employees had freely ratified the agreement.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a part-time office and clerical bargaining unit at the respondent university.

The respondent argued for a tag-end or standard office, clerical, and technical unit.

The Board found that the proposed unit, which mirrored the long-established full-time bargaining structure, was appropriate.

The Board excluded 23 students working in the Kinetic Centre, finding they had a stronger affinity with technical employees.

Due to a significant increase in the number of part-time employees shortly after the application date, the Board ordered a representation vote rather than automatic certification.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing certification, but the union subsequently filed counter-petitions reaffirming support for the union.

The Board found the counter-petitions to be a voluntary expression of employee wishes, despite a gap in the evidence regarding their custody prior to mailing.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and certified the union, with one Board member dissenting.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent hospital committed an unfair labour practice by filing a professional misconduct complaint against the local union president with the College of Nurses.

The union president had made inaccurate public statements at a press conference linking a patient's death to understaffing in the intensive care unit.

The Board found that the union president's statements, though inaccurate, were made without malice and constituted protected trade union activity under the Labour Relations Act.

However, the Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the hospital lacked anti-union animus and held a genuine belief that the statements constituted professional misconduct when it reported her to the College.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry, seeking two bargaining units: one for carpenters under section 131a(1) of the Labour Relations Act, and a second for labourers and bricklayers under section 6(1).

The Board held that section 131a deals with all applications for certification in the construction industry, and any finding of an appropriate unit under section 6(1) must be made within the confines of section 131a.

Because labourers and bricklayers would not be covered by the provincial agreement relating to carpenters, they were not appropriate for inclusion in the unit.

The Board limited the appropriate unit to carpenters and carpenters' apprentices.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent nursing home violated the Labour Relations Act by laying off its housekeeping and janitorial employees and contracting out their work.

The union argued the employer bargained in bad faith by failing to disclose this intention during negotiations and that the contracting out was motivated by anti-union animus to avoid the economic impact of the collective agreement.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer had no intention to contract out when the agreement was signed.

Furthermore, the Board held that the decision to contract out was a legitimate business decision motivated solely by a desire to save money, not by anti-union animus, and was permitted under the management rights clause of the collective agreement.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed statements of desire opposing the union.

The Board inquired into the origination and circulation of the petitions.

The Board found that the employer had laid off two employees to convey the consequences of supporting the union, and that the employee circulating the petitions was perceived as speaking for management.

Consequently, the Board held that the petitions were not voluntary and did not cast doubt on the union's membership evidence.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.