Jeffrey Egner

The applicant union brought an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act alleging a sale of a business from the predecessor employer to the respondent purchaser.

The predecessor owned two office buildings and employed cleaning staff represented by the union.

Prior to the sale, the predecessor contracted out the cleaning operations to a third party and later sold the buildings to the respondent, assigning the cleaning contract.

The Board found that a sale of a business occurred and that the union's bargaining rights continued to apply to the respondent.

However, the Board held that a prior memorandum of settlement was never ratified by the predecessor, meaning the respondent was not bound by any subsisting collective agreement.

The Board deferred determining the true employer status of the cleaning staff as the third-party contractor was not a party to the proceedings.

The union applied for certification of two bargaining units: one for single-car owner-operators and one for drivers operating under the respondent's taxi company.

The Board found that the owner-operators were dependent contractors, and thus employees under the Labour Relations Act, due to their economic dependence on the respondent's financing, dispatch system, and rules.

The Board also determined that the drivers were employees of the respondent, not the owner-operators, because the respondent exercised fundamental control over their hiring, discipline, and daily work.

Finding that the respondent had committed unfair labour practices, the Board granted certification for both units under section 7a of the Act.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent nursing home violated the Labour Relations Act by contracting out its housekeeping and janitorial work to an independent cleaning service.

The union argued that the decision was motivated by anti-union sentiment and unlawfully relieved the employer of its obligations under the collective agreement.

The Board found that the employer's decision was made entirely for legitimate business reasons, specifically to improve cleaning quality and save costs, with no evidence of anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed, with one Board member dissenting.

The applicant union applied under section 95(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether certain persons were employees of the respondent.

The respondent and intervener objected to the jurisdiction of the Board Officer to conduct an inquiry, arguing that there was no 'question' as to employee status since they conceded the persons were employees within the meaning of the Act, just not employees of the respondent.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that it has jurisdiction under section 95(2) to determine not only if a person is an employee, but also whether they are an employee of the specific employer party to the collective agreement.

The Board revised the Board Officer's appointment to inquire into whether the individuals are employees of the respondent.

The applicants sought a cease and desist direction under section 123 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent unions and their officials called, authorized, or encouraged an unlawful strike at a mine reactivation project.

The Board found that while an unlawful strike did occur, the evidence did not establish that the respondents called, authorized, or encouraged it.

In fact, the union official attempted to avert the strike and sought to have members work in compliance with the collective agreement.

The application was dismissed against all respondents.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices by discharging two telephone operators for their union activity and by violating the statutory freeze period.

The employer claimed the discharges were due to the failure of an experimental telephone dispatch system.

The Board found that the employer failed to discharge its reverse onus to prove the terminations were free of anti-union animus, given the employer's knowledge of the employees' union support and previous anti-union conduct.

The Board also held that the unilateral elimination of the telephone operator classification and the alteration of the dispatchers' hours of work during the freeze period violated section 70(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer was ordered to reinstate the grievors with compensation.

The trade union applied under section 95(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine whether certain cost and financial analysts were employees for the purposes of the Act.

The employer argued they were excluded under section 1(3)(b) because they were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

The Board found that the analysts regularly used projected labour rate increases and costed alternative proposals for collective bargaining and business planning.

Because this information was confidential and its disclosure would prejudice the employer's labour relations, the Board concluded that all the disputed classifications were excluded from the bargaining unit.