M. O'Brien

The applicant union requested an adjournment of its application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and adjourned the matter to January 8, 2002.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and adjourned the matter to January 8, 2002.

The applicant union requested an adjournment of the application.

The responding party did not appear.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and adjourned the matter to January 8, 2002.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and adjourned the matter to January 22, 2002.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application against the responding party.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

During an application for certification, the respondent employer alleged that two employees had not paid the required one dollar fee when signing union membership cards.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held an evidentiary hearing to assess the credibility of the witnesses.

The Board found that the union collector had engaged in deliberate misconduct by telling the employees not to worry about paying the fee and to conceal the non-payment.

Consequently, the Board rejected all 21 membership cards collected by that individual.

A dissenting Board member would have only rejected the two specific cards in question.

In an unfair labour practice complaint alleging termination for union activities, the respondent sought to introduce polygraph evidence to prove his lack of anti-union animus.

The complainant union objected, citing the Employment Standards Act's prohibition on lie detector tests in employment.

The Board ruled the polygraph evidence inadmissible, finding that its introduction would put employees at a tactical disadvantage and undermine the legislative intent protecting employees from such tests.

A dissenting member would have allowed the evidence to be considered for its relevance.

During a hearing into allegations of unlawful picketing, the complainant called an adverse party as a witness and sought to cross-examine him as of right, relying on Rule 53.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to adopt the civil rule, holding that it would instead apply the common law discretion to permit leading questions or cross-examination only if the witness demonstrates hostility or an unwillingness to answer.

The Board also ruled that section 9 of the Ontario Evidence Act does not prevent the witness's answers from being used against him in the very proceeding in which he is testifying, as the statutory protection against self-incrimination applies only to independent contemporaneous or subsequent proceedings.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer violated the statutory freeze under section 70(1) of the Labour Relations Act by discharging an employee without just cause, and violated the Occupational Health and Safety Act by discharging another employee for refusing unsafe work.

The Board dismissed the section 70 complaint, holding that the statutory freeze preserves the employer's right to conduct business as before, which includes the right to discharge employees for normal business reasons not motivated by anti-union sentiment.

The Board also dismissed the health and safety complaint, finding that the employee did not have reasonable grounds to believe the work was unsafe and did not actually refuse the work for safety reasons.