Ken Petryshen

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the improper discharge of an employee during an organizing campaign.

The employer claimed the employee was laid off due to a shortage of work and lack of qualifications.

The Board found that the employer's actions, including the discharge, involvement in an anti-union petition, and holding a captive audience meeting, violated sections 64, 66, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

Concluding that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained in a representation vote due to the chilling effect of the employer's conduct, the Board certified the union pursuant to section 8 of the Act and ordered the reinstatement of the discharged employee with compensation.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union 18 months after his discharge, and subsequently added the successor employer, TNT Canada Inc., as a respondent 21 months after the discharge.

TNT brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint against it due to extreme delay.

The Board found that the 21-month delay was extreme and caused significant prejudice to TNT, as it was not the employer at the time of discharge and the relevant management personnel had since left.

As the complainant failed to provide compelling labour relations reasons for the delay, the Board dismissed the claim for relief against TNT and adjourned the remainder of the complaint against the union.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of the respondent's employees.

The respondent requested a stay of proceedings pending an application for judicial review, which the Board denied.

The parties disputed the status of four individuals who were employed as students during the summer but had requested to continue working part-time during the school year.

The Board held that employee status is determined as of the application date.

Since the four individuals were 'students employed during the school vacation period' on the application date, they were excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board found that more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant and issued a certificate.

During applications for certification of limousine drivers, a dispute arose regarding the composition of the bargaining unit and the employment status of the drivers (whether they were employees, dependent contractors, or independent contractors).

The applicant union requested to review and copy the employee lists provided by the respondents.

The respondents objected, arguing the lists should remain confidential.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the union is entitled to review and copy the employee lists to meaningfully participate in the hearing and address the complex issues regarding the bargaining unit's composition.

A dissenting board member argued the lists should only be examined in the presence of a Labour Relations Officer to prevent their use for organizing purposes.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of employees in the respondent's Distribution Services Division.

The respondent argued that the Board lacked constitutional jurisdiction because its transportation operations extended interprovincially, falling under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act.

The Board found that the respondent was not a common carrier and its transportation operations were merely an in-house delivery arm integrated into its primary business of buying and selling goods.

Therefore, the operations fell under provincial jurisdiction.

The Board appointed a Board Officer to inquire into the duties and status of several challenged employees.

The applicant employee applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union challenged the voluntariness of the petition, alleging management involvement because the applicant was the sister of a supervisor.

The Board found that the applicant was not perceived as an agent of management and that the petition was voluntary.

A representation vote was ordered.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of a business occurred under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act when a receiver entered into an interim management agreement with a numbered company to operate the insolvent predecessor's trucking business pending a final sale.

The numbered company applied the collective agreement of a competing union to the employees.

The Board distinguished prior cases where a receiver operated a business solely as agent for the debtor, finding that the numbered company operated the business for its own profit subject to a fixed monthly fee.

The Board declared that a sale of a business had taken place, entitling the applicant to give notice to bargain, and amended the competing union's collective agreement to exclude the predecessor's business.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's Mississauga warehouse.

The parties disagreed on whether certain individuals exercised managerial functions and whether the 'Speed Service' delivery drivers should be included in the unit.

The Board appointed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the duties of the disputed managerial individuals.

Regarding the Speed Service drivers, the Board found they had a fundamentally different working relationship and community of interest compared to the regular company drivers, as they used their own vehicles, were paid by commission, and had different hours and supervision.

Consequently, the Board excluded the Speed Service drivers from the proposed bargaining unit.

The complainant filed an unfair labour practice complaint against his former employer nearly three years after his discharge, alleging he was terminated for exercising rights under the Labour Relations Act.

He had previously pursued an unsuccessful arbitration and two unsuccessful complaints against his union.

The employer raised a preliminary objection based on extreme delay.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board exercised its discretion under section 89(4) of the Act to decline to inquire into the complaint, finding the delay extreme, the explanation insufficient, and no overriding public policy reasons to proceed.

The complainants, former employees of Donline Haulage Inc., alleged that the respondent Teamsters Locals breached their duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

Following the acquisition of Donline's assets by Softley Cartage Limited, the complainants sought to have their seniority dovetailed with Softley's employees.

The respondent unions determined that the collective agreements did not support dovetailing and that Softley's employees had vested seniority rights.

The Board found that the unions' decision not to pursue the complainants' seniority claims was reasonable and legally justified.

Although the unions failed to communicate adequately with the complainants, this failure did not constitute a violation of section 68.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The respondent employer alleged that the union organizer misrepresented the initiation fee structure by telling employees they would have to pay a higher fee if they did not join immediately, thereby coercing them into signing membership cards.

The Board found that while there may have been some confusion, the organizer did not intend to mislead employees and the statements did not amount to coercion or fundamental misrepresentation.

The Board also found that counter-petitions signed by employees reaffirming their support for the union were voluntary.

As the union had the support of more than 55 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit, a certificate was issued without a representation vote.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The union filed documentary evidence of membership for more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the bargaining unit.

A group of employees filed statements of desire in opposition to the application.

The Board found that the voluntariness of the signatures of three union members who signed the statements of desire was not proven, as the person who witnessed most signatures did not witness theirs, and there was no evidence regarding the circumstances of their signing.

Consequently, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to direct a representation vote and granted the certification.

One Board member dissented, arguing a representation vote should have been held.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed an unfair labour practice by closing its Windsor Branch Plant and servicing the area from Chatham, arguing the closure was designed to remove the union as bargaining agent.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's decision was motivated solely by bona fide business considerations, specifically the loss of a major customer account and the need to improve profitability, and was devoid of any anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant, a supplier of ready-mix concrete, sought relief under sections 82 and 123 of the Labour Relations Act based on statements by union officials that a picket line would be set up at a construction site.

The Board found that the applicant was not an employer in the construction industry but could seek relief under section 82.

However, because no picket line was actually established, no unlawful strike occurred, and the applicant suffered no harm, the Board concluded the application was premature.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that following the sale of a business to the respondent, the respondent intermingled employees from its pre-existing business with those of the purchased business.

The respondent and an intervening union argued that no intermingling occurred and that the applicant had abandoned its bargaining rights when the original plant closed.

The Board found that the applicant had not abandoned its bargaining rights and that an intermingling of employees had occurred when the respondent transferred operations and integrated them with the purchased business.

Given the representation levels of the competing unions, the Board ordered a representation vote for the full-time employees to determine their bargaining agent, while excluding part-time employees who were previously unrepresented.

The applicant union alleged that the respondent employers engaged in an unlawful lock-out when they laid off eight employees who performed oil burner servicing.

The employers had merged operations due to a shrinking market and offered the employees positions as dependent contractors, which they refused.

The Board found that the employers' decision was based on commercial considerations to reduce overhead and streamline operations, rather than a motive to compel or induce the employees to refrain from exercising their rights under the Labour Relations Act.

Consequently, the Board held that the layoffs did not constitute a lock-out and dismissed the application.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of dependent contractor owner/operator truck drivers who hauled aggregate from the Canada Crushed Stone quarry.

The drivers had previously worked directly for Canada Crushed Stone but were later required to operate through brokers, including A. Cupido Haulage.

The Board applied the statutory definition of 'dependent contractor' and found that despite the introduction of the brokerage system, the drivers remained economically dependent upon Canada Crushed Stone, which continued to control their day-to-day work, set their rates, and provide the bulk of their work.

The Board concluded that the drivers were dependent contractors of Canada Crushed Stone and constituted an appropriate bargaining unit.