D. W. Brady

Following a finding that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to process the complainants' grievances regarding layoff selection, the Board convened a hearing to determine the appropriate remedy.

The Board decided to interpret the collective agreement itself rather than referring the matter to arbitration, finding that the union's internal conflict made arbitration inappropriate.

The Board concluded that the collective agreement required layoffs to be based on departmental seniority rather than mill seniority.

The Board awarded compensation to the complainants for lost wages during specific layoff periods, plus interest, but denied their request for costs.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employers violated the collective agreement.

Prior to the hearing, counsel for the parties negotiated a settlement.

The respondent later argued its counsel lacked the authority to bind Min-A-Mart Ltd. The Board found that the respondent's counsel had ostensible authority to settle the matter on behalf of both employers and that the applicant reasonably relied on this representation.

The Board enforced the settlement and declared Min-A-Mart Ltd. bound by the provincial collective agreement.

The applicant union sought certification for a single bargaining unit of all occasional teachers employed by the respondent board of education.

The respondent argued for four separate units, dividing teachers by elementary/secondary panels and by short-term/long-term assignments.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rejected the short-term/long-term division, finding it would cause undue fragmentation given the fluid nature of occasional teaching assignments.

However, the Board accepted the division between elementary and secondary panels, citing historical dichotomies, different qualifications, and distinct bargaining priorities.

The Board also determined that its standard 'thirty day rule' would apply to calculate the number of employees in the bargaining units at the time of the application.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer argued that the employees should be divided into two bargaining units: editorial employees and office/clerical/sales employees.

The union sought a single comprehensive unit.

The Board noted its flexible approach to bargaining units in the newspaper industry, as established in The Spectator and Peterborough Examiner.

Given the parties' agreement, the Board directed a representation vote among the editorial staff to determine their preference for a separate or comprehensive bargaining unit.

The Board also appointed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the duties of the sports editor and the secretary to the publisher.

The applicant union sought to set aside the results of a pre-hearing representation vote, arguing that the presence of the respondent employer's management personnel near the polling area intimidated voters.

The Board found that while it is preferable for management to absent themselves from the voting area, their mere presence, without evidence of electioneering, propagandizing, or other unfair labour practices, did not destroy the secrecy of the ballot or prevent employees from expressing their true wishes.

The application for certification was dismissed as the union failed to obtain more than fifty percent of the ballots cast.

The hospital filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the assignment of maintenance work.

Following the conversion of its boiler-room to a newer system, the hospital no longer required licensed stationary engineers.

The International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) both claimed jurisdiction over the remaining maintenance work.

The Board found that the work no longer required the specialized skills of a stationary engineer and directed that the work be assigned exclusively to CUPE members.

The Board also amended the scope clause of the IUOE collective agreement to restrict it to activities requiring a licensed stationary engineer, effectively leaving the IUOE bargaining unit vacant.

The complainant union alleged that the employer violated the statutory freeze under section 70(1) of the Labour Relations Act by contracting out garbage collection and landfill operations, resulting in the layoff of three employees.

The employer argued it was exercising a pre-existing management right for bona fide business reasons.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer had the right to contract out work prior to the freeze and had substantially progressed towards exercising that right before the freeze began.

The Board concluded that the employer's actions did not constitute an alteration of the terms or conditions of employment contrary to the Act.

The complainant, a journeyman millwright, was discharged by the company following a conveyor breakdown.

The union processed his grievance through several steps and ultimately negotiated a conditional reinstatement without loss of seniority, which the complainant accepted but later challenged.

The complainant alleged the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act by acting arbitrarily, delaying the process, and failing to obtain compensation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union officials made a reasoned decision based on the merits of the grievance and their past experience, and did not act in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner.