26 total
Contracting out the operation of a provincial park to private individuals constituted a transfer of an undertaking.
The Ontario Public Service Employees Union applied for a declaration that the Ministry of Natural Resources' contract with two individuals to operate Fitzroy Provincial Park constituted a transfer of an undertaking under the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act.
The Board found that the contractors were operating the park for their own account, assuming financial risks, and using the physical assets and similar jobs as formerly performed by Crown employees.
The Board concluded that the transaction was analogous to a lease or franchise and declared it a transfer of an undertaking from the Crown to an employer.
Board accepts union membership evidence despite one invalid card and procedural irregularities in collection.
During a hearing into an application for certification, the Board investigated allegations that the applicant union submitted membership evidence indicating employees had paid one dollar when they had not.
The Board found that one employee had not paid the dollar, rendering his card invalid.
However, the Board accepted the evidence of union officials over a conflicting witness regarding another card, concluding that the remaining membership documents were reliable despite procedural irregularities.
The matter was relisted for continuation.
Religious exemption from union dues granted to employees objecting to union's abortion stance and strike mandate.
The applicants, two secretaries employed by the Niagara South Board of Education, applied under section 47 of the Labour Relations Act for an exemption from paying union dues to the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) based on their religious convictions.
They objected to the union's affiliation with the Ontario Federation of Labour's pro-choice resolution on abortion, the union's constitutional defence of the right to strike, and the lack of reference to God in the union's oath.
The Board applied the Wybenga test and found that the applicants' beliefs were sincerely held, religious in nature, and the actual cause of their objection to paying dues.
The Board granted the applications, ordering that the dues be remitted to a mutually agreed charitable organization.
One Board member dissented, arguing that objections to non-collective bargaining issues like abortion resolutions should not justify a total exemption from dues.
Unfair labour practice complaint deferred to arbitration as the dispute was primarily contractual.
The complainant filed an unfair labour practice complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act.
The respondent brought a preliminary motion requesting the Board defer the matter to arbitration.
Applying the Valdi deferral doctrine, the Board found that the dispute over a payment to the intervener was essentially a contractual issue that could be resolved by an arbitrator.
The Board granted the motion and deferred the complaint to arbitration, retaining jurisdiction in the event the arbitrator failed to deal with the unfair labour practice issues.
Unfair labour practice complaint dismissed as employer's refusal to bargain stemmed from internal union dispute.
The complainant national union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the respondent employer contravened section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to bargain exclusively with a trustee appointed by the national union.
The local union had voted to disaffiliate and challenged the trusteeship's validity.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding the employer was willing to bargain in good faith but was thwarted by the internal union dispute over bargaining rights, and was not using the dispute as a pretext to avoid its obligations.
Professional engineering firm directly employing labourers on a project is an employer in the construction industry.
The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent construction labourers employed by the respondent.
The respondent, a professional engineering firm, argued it was not an employer in the construction industry as it acted merely as an agent for the owner and contracted out 98% of the work.
The Board found that the respondent directly employed two labourers, directed their work, and paid them.
Applying previous jurisprudence, the Board held that an entity need not have construction as its primary business to be an employer in the construction industry, and concluded the respondent met the statutory definition.