Jonathan Eaton

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit comprised solely of registered and graduate nursing assistants at the respondent hospital.

The hospital argued that the appropriate unit should be a broader service unit, consistent with historical Ontario Labour Relations Board practice.

The Board reviewed the history of bargaining unit configurations in the hospital sector and the evolving professionalization of nursing assistants.

Balancing the community of interest, the aversion to undue fragmentation, and the employees' right to self-organization, the majority found that the proposed unit of registered and graduate nursing assistants was appropriate.

A dissenting member argued that the decision departed from established precedent and risked undue fragmentation.

The applicant union sought to displace the intervener union as the bargaining agent for the respondent's employees.

A representation vote was held.

The intervener and respondent requested that the vote be disregarded because the Board provided voting materials only in English and French, despite a large percentage of employees speaking Spanish or Punjabi.

They argued this violated the Human Rights Code and caused widespread confusion.

The Board reaffirmed its long-standing policy of providing documents only in English and French, noting that it is the responsibility of the parties to explain the process to employees who do not understand the official languages.

The request to retake the vote was denied.

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.

The respondent union moved to dismiss the application as untimely because it was filed after a conciliation officer had been appointed.

The intervener employer argued the appointment of the conciliation officer was a nullity due to defective service.

The Board held that administrative defects in service do not invalidate the appointment of a conciliation officer and that the employer had waived any irregularity by participating in conciliation.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant, a leadhand, applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights and circulated a petition in support.

The Board inquired into the voluntariness of the petition.

The Board found that the applicant's position as a leadhand with power to effectively recommend discipline, combined with his family relationship to the plant manager, would cause reasonable employees to perceive him as closely aligned with management.

Consequently, the Board was not satisfied that the petition represented a voluntary expression of employee wishes.

The application was dismissed.