Harry Freedman

The applicant trade union filed an unfair labour practice complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding parties—various receivers and secured creditors of the bankrupt employer—violated section 70 by failing to remit approximately $35,000 in union dues deducted prior to the bankruptcy.

The responding parties raised preliminary objections that the application did not disclose a prima facie case and that the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the receivers and creditors could not be characterized as 'persons acting on behalf of an employer' under section 70.

Furthermore, the Board held that the claim for unremitted dues was a 'claim provable in bankruptcy' and was therefore caught by the stay of proceedings under section 69.3(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint seeking to enforce a first collective agreement imposed by a board of arbitration, which included a disputed union shop clause.

The responding employer refused to implement the agreement, arguing the arbitration board exceeded its jurisdiction, and filed an application for judicial review.

The Board first ruled that bargaining unit employees who opposed the union shop clause were not entitled to notice or standing in the complaint, as their employment status was not directly affected at this stage.

Ultimately, the Board declined to inquire into the union's complaint, finding that the fundamental issue of the collective agreement's validity was best determined by the Court in the pending judicial review application.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by discontinuing the practice of providing free movie passes to newly unionized front-of-house employees immediately after their first collective agreement was signed.

The employer argued it was merely enforcing an 'entire agreement' clause.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the employer was entitled to rely on the clause, its differential treatment of the front-of-house staff compared to unionized projectionists (who continued to receive passes) demonstrated an anti-union animus.

The Board declared a violation of section 72 and ordered the employer to cease and desist the discriminatory practice.

The applicant union, IATSE Local 173, applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration that it was the successor to several other IATSE locals with respect to their jurisdiction over projectionists.

The reorganization was approved by the parent union and the membership of the affected locals.

Famous Players and Cineplex Odeon opposed the application, arguing that the union constitution did not permit the transfer of jurisdiction in this manner.

The Board found that the reorganization was consistent with the union's constitution and past practice, and that the term 'jurisdiction' in section 63 encompassed the transfer of geographic and craft jurisdiction between local unions.

The Board granted the declaration, confirming Local 173 as the successor bargaining agent.

The applicant union sought certification for three groups of employees, submitting authorization cards as evidence of employee support.

The employer argued the cards merely expressed a desire for representation and did not constitute 'membership' or an 'application for membership' as required by the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed the statutory history, including the impact of Bill 40, and concluded that the legislative changes did not alter the fundamental requirement for actual membership or an application for membership.

Finding that the authorization cards did not meet this standard, and refusing to admit oral evidence to cure the documentary defect, the Board dismissed the certification applications.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer contravened section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act by using replacement workers during a lawful strike.

The employer used an assistant manager to operate projection equipment and later to supervise an apprentice projectionist.

The Board found that the assistant manager's initial operation of the equipment violated the Act.

Furthermore, the Board held that supervising an apprentice projectionist constitutes bargaining unit work, and the employer's use of the assistant manager for this purpose also contravened section 73.1.

The Board issued a cease-and-desist direction.

In an application for certification in the construction industry, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined whether certain individuals should be counted as employees in the proposed bargaining unit of electricians.

The Board found that an employee attending a training program on the application date was not 'at work' in the unit.

The Board also held that three employees performing electrical work on the employer's own premises, who were not qualified journeymen or apprentice electricians under the Trades Qualification Act, should not be included in the unit because they shared no real community of interest with qualified electricians who could lawfully work on construction sites for clients.

The Toronto Transit Commission filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the union after the union expelled several inspectors from membership.

During a strike, the TTC had directed the inspectors, who were excluded from the bargaining unit as managerial personnel, to perform bargaining unit work.

The union passed a resolution revoking the local membership of any inspector who complied, which resulted in the loss of their departmental seniority rights upon return to the bargaining unit.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the strike provisions of the Labour Relations Act (sections 74, 76, and 78) apply only to 'employees' and not to managerial persons.

The Board further held that section 70 does not protect managerial persons seeking to enforce seniority rights under a collective agreement.