4 total
Written settlement of unfair labour practice complaint enforced despite employer's unexpressed expectations regarding employee retention.
The union filed a complaint alleging the employer breached a written settlement of an earlier unfair labour practice complaint by failing to pay agreed-upon compensation to three reinstated employees.
The employer argued the settlement was void because the employees resigned shortly after returning to work, which contravened the employer's unexpressed expectation of stability.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the clear, unambiguous terms of a written settlement cannot be repudiated based on unstated expectations or subsequent events not addressed in the agreement.
The Board directed the employer to pay the specified sums.
Union certification granted; incumbent union's allegations of employer support and invalid representation vote dismissed.
The applicant union applied to displace the incumbent union as the bargaining agent for the respondent's plant employees.
The applicant won the representation vote.
The incumbent union argued that the application should be dismissed under section 13 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the employer provided support to the applicant.
The incumbent also argued that the vote was invalid because the employer failed to implement an arbitration award requiring the discharge of employees who did not pay union dues.
The Board found no evidence of employer support for the applicant and concluded that the employer's response to the arbitration award did not invalidate the vote.
The Board certified the applicant union.
Employee association denied certification due to employer support in providing an employee list to organizers.
The applicant union applied for certification.
An employee association intervened, seeking certification as a rival trade union.
The Board found that the intervener was formed by a small group of employees opposed to unionization, and that the employer's plant manager had provided them with a list of employee names and telephone numbers to assist in forming the association.
The Board held that this constituted employer support within the meaning of section 13 of the Labour Relations Act.
Consequently, the Board dismissed the intervener's application for certification and directed a representation vote for the applicant union.
Application for unlawful lock-out dismissed as layoffs were motivated by commercial reorganization, not anti-union animus.
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.
