Leonard P. Kavanaugh, Q.C.

The applicant, a teachers' federation, sought certification to represent occasional teachers employed by the respondent school board.

The respondent objected, arguing the applicant was not a 'trade union' under the Labour Relations Act because its membership included school principals, who allegedly exercised managerial functions.

The respondent also argued the applicant's constitution and practices discriminated on the basis of sex.

The Board held that the inclusion of principals did not deprive the applicant of its trade union status, noting that principals are included in teachers' bargaining units under the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act and do not exercise managerial functions over occasional teachers.

The Board also found no evidence of prohibited sexual discrimination, concluding the applicant is a trade union entitled to seek certification.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 107 of the Labour Relations Act regarding his authority to appoint an employer nominee to a board of arbitration under section 44(4).

The arbitration was previously directed by the Board as a remedy for unfair labour practices committed by both the employer and the union, which had resulted in the complainant's termination.

The employer refused to appoint a nominee, arguing that it had applied for judicial review and that the arbitration was not pursuant to the collective agreement.

The Board advised the Minister that the arbitration process contemplated by its remedial order is a process under the collective agreement to which section 44(4) applies, and therefore the Minister has the legal authority to appoint the employer nominee.

The complainant, a registered nurse with 27 years of service, was suspended pending an investigation into her conduct.

At a disciplinary meeting, she was given the choice to resign or be terminated.

Her union representative, who was also her charge nurse and had a conflict of interest, was instructed by a union official to only take notes and not speak.

The hospital refused the complainant's requests to adjourn the meeting to obtain proper representation.

The complainant signed a letter of resignation, which a subsequent arbitration board found to be voluntary, precluding a hearing on the merits of her termination.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by acting arbitrarily and discriminatorily in failing to provide meaningful representation.

The Board also found that the hospital violated section 64 by intentionally interfering with the complainant's right to union representation.

Exercising its broad remedial authority under section 89(4), the Board directed that the complainant's termination grievance be heard on its merits, notwithstanding the prior arbitration award.

The applicant union filed a complaint alleging that the respondent Board of Education engaged in an unlawful lock-out when it laid off all four plumbers in the bargaining unit without explanation and sub-contracted their work.

The respondent moved for a non-suit, arguing there was no evidence of a lock-out or of a motive to compel or induce employees to refrain from exercising their rights.

The Board rejected the non-suit motion, finding that in the context of a disputed bargaining relationship, the unexplained lay-off was intended to send a message to the employees to change their union's bargaining position.

As the respondent elected not to call evidence, the Board drew an adverse inference and declared the lay-off an unlawful lock-out.