Marie Kelly

The applicant, United Steelworkers of America, brought a successor rights application under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board declared that CAW Local 448 acquired the rights, privileges, and status of its predecessor, Retail Wholesale Canada, Canadian Service Sector Division of the United Steelworkers of America, Local 448, by reason of a merger, amalgamation, or transfer of jurisdiction.

The parties agreed to adjourn the applications sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment, noting that the matters would be deemed terminated without further notice if no party requested to proceed within that time.

The applicant brought a matter before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Pending discussions between the parties, the Board adjourned the matter sine die.

The Board directed that if no party requests to proceed within one year, the matter will be deemed terminated.

The applicant sought declarations terminating the bargaining rights of construction trade unions under section 127.2 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Preliminary issues arose regarding the late filing of a response by Local 1410 and requests for production and particulars.

The Board exercised its discretion to accept the late response, noting the applicant's prior consent to an extension and the lack of prejudice.

The Board also ordered the applicant to produce lists of construction projects, contractors, and employees engaged in relevant trades, finding the information arguably relevant to whether the applicant is a non-construction employer.

The applicants, Millwright Local 1410 and U.A. Local 221, applied for certification for construction employees of Alcan Aluminium Limited.

Alcan and intervening unions argued the bargaining units should be restricted to Alcan's Chemicals division or include 'save and except' language to protect existing bargaining rights held by the Steelworkers and Machinists at other plants.

The Board found it inappropriate to restrict the units to a specific division but agreed to include specific 'save and except' language to preserve existing bargaining rights.

The Board also dismissed Alcan's motion to dismiss the U.A.'s application based on alleged misrepresentations by the union that it would not seek certification, finding no legal basis for estoppel or fraud.

Certificates were ordered to issue.

Two trade unions applied for certification in the construction industry, naming Alcan Aluminium Limited as the responding employer.

Several divisions of Alcan intervened, arguing that the specific division, Chemicals, was the true employer and that Alcan Aluminium Limited should not be named.

The Board examined the corporate structure and control, finding that Alcan Aluminium Limited retained ultimate financial and labour relations control, particularly concerning the construction project in question.

The Board concluded that Alcan Aluminium Limited, not its unincorporated division, was the proper responding employer for labour relations purposes.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees at a retail store.

During the organizing drive, the employer engaged in a campaign that included daily meetings and managers repeatedly questioning employees about the union.

Crucially, management refused to answer employee questions about whether the store would close if the union was successful, which the Board found intentionally fueled employee fears for their job security.

The Board concluded that this conduct violated section 70 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that the resulting representation vote did not reflect the true wishes of the employees.

The Board certified the union pursuant to section 11 of the Act.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the responding party's bargaining rights.

The responding party raised preliminary objections regarding the timeliness of the application and the failure to properly deliver it prior to filing.

The Board found that under the new Interim Certification and Termination Rules, applications are deemed filed on the date they are received by the Board, not the date they are sent by registered mail.

Because the application was received after the collective agreement had expired, it was untimely.

The application was dismissed, with one Board Member dissenting.

The applicant trade union sought certification for employees at a Canadian Tire outlet.

Objecting employees challenged the constitutionality of section 8(4) of the Labour Relations Act, which precludes the Board from considering post-application evidence of employees revoking union support, arguing it violated their Charter rights to freedom of expression, association, and equality.

The Board dismissed the Charter challenges, finding any infringement of expression was justified under section 1, and rejected claims of defective membership evidence based on alleged misrepresentations by rank-and-file organizers.

The Board also affirmed the appropriateness of the union's proposed 'all employee' bargaining unit and determined that a department manager did not exercise sufficient managerial authority to be excluded from the unit.

The United Steelworkers of America applied for certification to represent employees of Roy Ayranto Sales Limited.

Several employees filed objections alleging that union supporters used coercion, intimidation, and threats to job security to obtain membership evidence.

The Board found that the individuals making the threats were not union officials and had no authority to carry them out, and that the objecting employees did not sign cards as a result.

The Board also dismissed an allegation by one employee that she was misled into signing a card, finding her testimony not credible.

The Board concluded that the union's membership evidence was reliable and granted the certificate.

The United Steelworkers of America applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of Hemlo Gold Mines Inc. A group of employees intervened, seeking to file petitions opposing the union after the application filing date.

The intervenors argued that the Board's rules regarding the certification application date and notice to employees violated the rules of natural justice and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Board dismissed the intervenors' motions, finding that the Labour Relations Act clearly established the application filing date as the certification application date, and that the statutory provisions did not violate the Charter.

The Board also dismissed a motion alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Finding that over 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit had applied to become members of the union on or before the certification application date, the Board certified the union without a representation vote.

The applicant union sought certification and filed photocopied membership evidence after the original cards were lost in the mail.

A group of objecting employees filed statements of desire but failed to attend the scheduled hearing, having mistakenly assumed their written request for a venue change would automatically adjourn the matter.

The Board declined to consider the objectors' statements due to their failure to attend despite clear notice.

The Board also accepted the photocopied membership evidence, finding that the union had made a diligent search for the lost originals and fully disclosed the circumstances.

An interim certificate was issued to the union.