Lorne A. Richmond

The applicant union filed two applications for certification in the construction industry.

A group of employees filed statements of desire in opposition.

At the hearing, the representative for the objecting employees requested an adjournment, arguing he had not received adequate notice of the hearing.

The Board found that the representative had not been served with a notice of hearing because the statement he filed lacked his return address and did not explicitly identify him as the representative.

However, because the Board also failed to issue a general notice to employees at the employer's address, the representative did not receive adequate notice.

The Board granted the adjournment to allow the representative time to retain counsel.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The respondent employer argued the bargaining unit should be limited to the residential sector.

The Board ruled that the unit applied for, relating to the industrial, commercial and institutional sector, was appropriate under s. 144(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board appointed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the employee status of several individuals.

The Board also declined to conduct its own inquiry into an allegation of conditional payment for union membership, ruling that the respondent must prove the allegation in the ordinary course.

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.

The applicant union applied for certification of drivers and walkers engaged in the respondent's messenger service.

The respondent challenged the application on the basis that its labour relations fell under federal jurisdiction, arguing that the messenger service was an integral arm of its cross-Canada courier service.

The Board found that the messenger service operated as an independent local business serving the public at large, and was not so integral to the federal courier undertaking as to fall outside provincial jurisdiction.

The Board concluded that the labour relations of the messenger service fell within provincial jurisdiction.

The complainant union (CLAC) sought a declaration that a collective agreement between the respondent union (SEU) and the employer was void insofar as it granted voluntary recognition for geographic areas where the employer had no facilities or employees.

CLAC argued this constituted unlawful employer support designed to give SEU an organizing advantage.

The Board dismissed the application as premature, holding that it will not decide hypothetical questions or issue declarations regarding future rights where no employees are currently affected.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees at a newly opened nursing home in Etobicoke.

The intervener union claimed it already represented the employees based on a voluntary recognition agreement with the employer.

The Board held that under section 60(1) of the Labour Relations Act, a voluntary recognition agreement that expands an existing bargaining unit to include new employees is subject to challenge if entered into before the employees are hired or aware of the union representation.

Since the intervener did not demonstrate majority support among the new employees at the time they were hired, the Board declared the intervener was not entitled to represent them, and the applicant's certification application was timely.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry and requested a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act for two respondents.

Several individuals, who were laid off from one of the respondents at the time of the application, filed petitions objecting to the application.

The applicant challenged their status to intervene, arguing they were not employees in the bargaining unit on the application date.

The Board deferred its decision on their status until it could hear all evidence regarding the related employer and build-up issues, permitting the objectors to participate in the proceedings in the interim.

The applicant trade union applied for certification, demonstrating membership support of approximately 72 per cent of the bargaining unit.

The respondent employer and a group of objecting employees requested that the Board order a representation vote, alleging that the organizing campaign was characterized by a climate of intimidation, particularly affecting the large number of Vietnamese refugees in the workforce.

The Board heard evidence of isolated threats but found no pattern of intimidation related to the collection of membership evidence.

Declining to order a vote based on generalized cultural characteristics or surmise, the Board exercised its discretion to certify the union based on the unequivocal membership evidence.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employers committed unfair labour practices during a lawful strike.

The union claimed the employers bargained in bad faith by refusing to disclose the actual wage rates of bargaining unit employees and by bargaining directly with striking employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employers violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by withholding the wage information, which was necessary for rational and informed collective bargaining.

The Board also found that one of the employers, Globe, violated sections 64 and 67(1) by engaging in direct negotiations with a group of employees, thereby undermining the union's exclusive bargaining rights.

The Board ordered the employers to cease direct bargaining, disclose the wage rates, and resume mediation.

The complainants requested a direction under section 91 of the Act regarding a work assignment dispute on a pipeline project.

The respondent unions raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 91(14) because the collective agreements required referring such disputes to a mutually selected tribunal.

The Board found that while one collective agreement contained a specific jurisdictional dispute mechanism, the other did not.

Therefore, the collective agreements did not establish a mutual dispute-settlement mechanism that would exclude the Board's jurisdiction.

The preliminary objection was dismissed and the matter was listed for a hearing on the merits.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a bargaining unit consisting of cleaning staff at a single apartment building managed by the respondent.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description.

The Board held a hearing to address concerns about undue fragmentation of the workforce.

Given the history of viable collective bargaining relationships in the property management industry based on similar site-specific cleaning units, and relying on a previous decision involving the same parties at a nearby building, the Board accepted the agreed-upon bargaining unit as appropriate and granted the certificate.

During a hearing for an unfair labour practice complaint, the complainant union subpoenaed a journalist who had written an article about the respondent employer's alleged threat to cancel its animal control contract.

The journalist refused to reveal his sources for the article.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that the identity of the sources was relevant and admissible, and that no journalistic privilege exists in Ontario to protect a reporter's sources.

When the journalist continued to refuse to answer the question, the Board consented to state a case to the Divisional Court for contempt 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.