E. L. Stringer

The applicant union sought a declaration of successor rights, arguing that the opening of a Ruth's Chris steakhouse in the hotel premises formerly occupied by Trader Vic's constituted a sale of a business under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union argued that the downtown location was a key asset transferred to the new restaurant.

The Board found that the transaction was merely a lease of space and that no part of the predecessor's business, other than the location itself, was transferred.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to terminate the responding party union's bargaining rights.

A representation vote resulted in a tie, with one segregated ballot ultimately ruled eligible.

The applicant and intervenor employer requested that the single ballot be counted, while the union requested a new vote.

The Board directed that a new representation vote be taken to preserve the secrecy of the ballot.

The union applied for certification and filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the employer discharged a union supporter and engaged in a pervasive campaign of interference during an organizing drive.

The Board found that the discharge was motivated by a bona fide belief of theft, not anti-union animus, and that the employer's frequent written communications fell within the bounds of free speech.

However, the Board held that the employer breached the Act by prohibiting union solicitation on company property during an employee's vacation, promising to clear discipline records, removing last names from schedules, and granting an unprecedented Christmas bonus as an inducement.

The Board concluded these violations were not so serious as to prevent the ascertainment of employees' true wishes under section 8.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated the statutory freeze provisions under section 81(1) of the Labour Relations Act by unilaterally changing its policy regarding sales commissions on returns and account corrections.

The employer argued that the change was part of its normal business practice and within its management rights.

The Board applied the 'reasonable expectations' test and found that the complete elimination of commissions in these circumstances, contrary to a policy that had been in place for at least five years, was not within the reasonable expectations of the employees.

The Board declared that the employer violated the Act and ordered compensation for affected bargaining unit members.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its certification applications after meetings with a Labour Relations Officer had commenced and after the respondent employer raised 'non-pay' allegations regarding the union's membership evidence.

The employer argued the applications should be dismissed and the non-pay allegations adjudicated.

The Board declined to adjudicate the non-pay allegations in the context of a withdrawn application.

However, interpreting its Practice Note No. 7 in light of recent procedural changes, the Board held that a request to withdraw made after a Labour Relations Officer has met with the parties should result in the dismissal of the applications.

The applications were accordingly dismissed.

The applicant union alleged that James River-Marathon Ltd. (JRM) was a successor employer to American Can Canada Inc. regarding its woodlands operations under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

JRM had purchased a paper mill and timber limits from American Can, but simultaneously transferred the woodlands equipment and exclusive cutting rights to Pic River Forest Products Inc., a subsidiary of Buchanan Forest Products Limited.

The Board found that while JRM initially acquired the woodlands business, it immediately transferred it to Pic River in a transaction resembling a sale of a business rather than a mere subcontract.

Since JRM did not retain or operate the woodlands business itself, the application for a successor employer declaration against JRM was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's retail store.

The union filed sufficient documentary evidence of membership to be certified without a representation vote.

However, a group of employees filed a petition opposing certification, which included signatures of employees who had previously signed union membership cards.

The Board found that the petition was originated and circulated by the head cashier, who exercised supervisory functions and was perceived by employees as having a special relationship with management.

Consequently, the Board concluded the petition did not represent a voluntary change of heart and declined to order a representation vote.

The union was certified.

One Board member dissented.

The applicants sought a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

In support of the application, a group of employees left work en masse during working hours to sign a petition at the Labour Board.

The Board found that the employer's failure to question or prevent the mass departure would lead employees to believe management supported the petition and would know who did or did not participate.

Consequently, the Board concluded the petition was not a voluntary expression of employee wishes and dismissed the application.

A dissenting board member would have directed a representation vote.