Marilyn Silverman

The applicant applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

At the hearing to determine the voluntariness of the petition filed in support of the application, the applicant provided evidence of the petition's preparation but failed to provide evidence regarding its circulation, continuity of carriage, or the circumstances under which each signature was collected.

The union brought a non-suit motion.

The Board granted the non-suit motion and dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet its onus to prove the petition represented the voluntary wishes of the employees.

The applicant employees applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding union.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the employee petitions filed in support were not voluntary.

The Board concluded that the active involvement of lead hands—who were perceived by employees as linked to management—in originating and circulating the petitions during working hours would likely lead employees to believe the petitions were supported or condoned by management.

A subsequent request for reconsideration was also dismissed, as it raised no new issues or evidence that could not have been presented at the initial hearing.

The complainant, an occupational health nurse, alleged she was discharged contrary to section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after refusing to return keys to the employer's medical files during a labour dispute, citing confidentiality concerns.

The employer claimed she was fired for insubordination and abusive language.

The Board found the complainant was genuinely attempting to comply with the confidentiality provisions of the Act.

While her abusive language warranted discipline, discharge was excessive.

The Board ordered the discharge removed from her record and substituted a written warning.