37 total
Section 73.1 prohibition on replacement workers applies prospectively to strikes that commenced before its enactment.
The applicant union alleged that the responding employers violated section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act by using replacement workers during a lawful strike.
The employers brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application, arguing that section 73.1, which came into force on January 1, 1993, did not apply because the strike and the hiring of replacement workers occurred prior to its enactment.
The majority of the Board dismissed the motion, finding that section 73.1 is not retroactive but applies prospectively to the ongoing status of a strike, prohibiting the continued use of replacement workers after the statutory preconditions are met.
The presumption against retrospectivity did not apply.
Board rejects restricted bargaining unit description for craft union in construction industry certification application.
The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of carpenters engaged in the installation of exterior cladding systems.
The respondent employer argued for a broader unit of all carpenters and carpenters' apprentices.
The Board ruled that in the construction industry, a craft union must seek to represent all members of its craft employed by the respondent, and therefore rejected the applicant's restricted description.
The Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and appointed an officer to inquire into the employment status of certain individuals characterized by the respondent as independent contractors.
Board directs union to provide particulars and orders related employer and unfair labour practice matters heard together.
The Ontario Nurses' Association filed applications under sections 1(4) and 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act, along with an unfair labour practice complaint under section 89, against Carecor Health Services Inc. and numerous hospitals.
The union alleged that the hospitals formed Carecor to provide a pool of agency nurses to avoid their collective agreement obligations.
The Board dismissed the allegations under sections 50 and 66 for failing to disclose a prima facie case, but allowed the section 64 complaint to proceed.
The Board directed the union to provide particulars of its allegations and ordered that the section 1(4) application and the remaining section 89 complaint be heard together.
The section 106(2) application was adjourned pending the disposition of the other matters.
Carpenters supplied by a project manager were not employees of the respondent for certification purposes.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent carpenters employed by the respondent in the construction industry.
The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description but disputed the list of employees for the count.
The core issue was whether three carpenters working at the respondent's site were employees of the respondent or of a project management company, Sant Developments.
Applying the Board's seven-fold test for determining employer status, the Board found that the carpenters remained employees of Sant Developments, which hired, paid, and directed them, rather than the respondent.
As the union had the requisite support among the actual employees of the respondent, certificates were issued.
Board refuses to dismiss unfair labour practice complaint for delay and applies reverse onus provision.
The complainant alleged that his former employer and union conspired to dismiss him, contrary to the Labour Relations Act.
The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the complaint should be dismissed due to delay and res judicata.
The majority of the Board refused to dismiss the complaint on the basis of delay, finding that the complainant only had suspicions until the alleged conspiracy was made public, and that res judicata did not apply.
The Board unanimously ruled that the reverse onus provision in subsection 89(5) applied, as the complaint involved allegations of anti-union animus affecting employment.
The Board ordered the employer to proceed first with its evidence.
Union certification granted for an 'all employees' bargaining unit in the construction industry to avoid fragmentation.
The applicant union sought certification for employees of the respondent, an employer in the construction industry.
Both parties agreed that the appropriate bargaining unit should be described as 'all employees' rather than limited to specific trades on the date of application.
The Board noted its usual practice of restricting construction industry units to specific trades to avoid jurisdictional disputes.
However, because the employees performed both construction and non-construction work, the Board found that an 'all employees' unit was appropriate to prevent fragmentation and disruption.
The Board also accepted the parties' agreement to use the phrase 'at and out of' Bowmanville, given that employees worked at various job sites.
Finding that more than 55% of the employees were union members, the Board granted the application and issued a certificate.
A non-construction trade union may apply to certify construction industry employees under general Act provisions.
The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent, an employer engaged in the fabrication and erection of structural steel.
The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing that because it operates in the construction industry, only a trade union pertaining to the construction industry under section 117(f) of the Labour Relations Act could apply.
The Board dismissed the motion, finding that while the respondent and its employees fall within the construction industry provisions, section 144(5) and the general provisions of the Act permit a non-construction trade union to apply for certification outside the province-wide bargaining scheme.
Board amends 1973 accreditation certificate to exclude low-rise residential sector due to abandoned bargaining rights.
The applicant sought reconsideration of a 1973 decision and certificate of accreditation to amend the name of the accredited employers' organization, clarify the geographic scope, and exclude the low-rise part of the residential sector of the construction industry.
The Board found that the current bargaining structure, the consent of the respondent union, and the position of the Mechanical Contractors Association Toronto justified the variation.
The Board noted that the accredited employers' organization had abandoned its bargaining rights in respect of the low-rise part of the residential sector.
The Board varied the decision and certificate accordingly.
Board orders document production but dismisses reconsideration request, affirming finality of accreditation certificates.
The corporate respondents sought production of certain documents and reconsideration of a previous Board decision regarding the validity of a certificate of accreditation.
The Board ordered the production of documents relating to the attempt by a group of residential low-rise contractors to join the Mechanical Contractors Association Toronto, finding them arguably relevant.
However, the Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, affirming that under section 106(1) of the Labour Relations Act, a certificate of accreditation is final and conclusive for all purposes and its validity cannot be challenged in a collateral proceeding before the Board.
Board refuses to review 1973 accreditation certificate and rules on admissibility of mediator conversations.
In consolidated complaints and an application for consent to prosecute, the corporate respondents raised a preliminary issue challenging the validity of a 1973 accreditation decision and certificate, arguing it was a nullity due to jurisdictional errors.
The Board declined to permit the challenge, holding that a certificate of accreditation conclusively establishes bargaining rights until revoked or quashed, and that one panel of the Board should not act as an appellate body over another.
In a separate evidentiary ruling, the Board held that evidence of conversations with a mediator in the presence of both parties is admissible, but evidence of what a mediator said to one party in private is inadmissible to protect the confidentiality of the mediation process.
Application for relief under section 135 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over section 131 violations.
The applicant, an accredited employers' organization, applied for relief under section 135 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the corporate respondents violated section 131 by entering into an agreement with the respondent union.
The Board determined that section 135 only applies to unlawful strikes or lock-outs.
Since the employees had returned to work, there was no ongoing strike.
The Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction under section 135 to remedy an alleged violation of section 131 and dismissed the application, noting the applicant could bring a complaint under section 89.
Board grants accreditation, finding clear and compelling reasons to segregate the low-rise residential construction sector.
The applicant sought accreditation as the bargaining agent for a group of employers in the construction industry.
The Board found the applicant to be a properly constituted employers' organization with the necessary authority to act as an accredited bargaining agent.
The parties agreed on a bargaining unit description that segregated the low-rise part of the residential sector.
The Board determined that, given the existing pattern of collective bargaining and the abandonment of bargaining rights by other associations in this specific sub-sector, there were clear and compelling reasons to divide the residential sector.
The Board approved the agreed-upon unit of employers as appropriate for collective bargaining.
Warranty clerk and cashier excluded from service department bargaining unit due to community of interest.
The applicant union sought to include a warranty clerk and a cashier in the bargaining unit of service and parts department employees.
The respondent employer argued they were office staff and should be excluded.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board examined the duties, supervision, and working conditions of the two employees.
Applying the community of interest criteria, the Board found that their work was primarily clerical and their functional coherence and interdependence lay with the general accounting office rather than the production employees.
Consequently, the Board excluded both employees from the bargaining unit.
Board directs pre-hearing representation vote, deferring membership evidence challenges to post-vote hearing.
The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.
Counsel for a group of employees and counsel for the respondent employer requested a hearing prior to the vote, alleging issues with the union's membership evidence, including unreturned cards from a previous dismissed application.
The Board declined to schedule a hearing prior to the vote, holding that issues regarding the adequacy and integrity of membership evidence should be dealt with at a hearing after the pre-hearing vote is conducted, as per the statutory scheme.
The Board directed the taking of a pre-hearing representation vote and ordered the ballot box sealed.
Application to determine employee status is timely during a lawful strike; referred to an officer.
The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether certain supervisors exercised managerial functions.
The respondent employer argued the application was untimely and should not proceed because the parties were engaged in a lawful strike and the supervisors were performing production work.
The Board held that the parties were 'in the course of bargaining' and the application was timely.
The Board noted that evidence of duties performed during the strike was irrelevant, but directed an officer to inquire into the supervisors' regular duties and responsibilities.
Sale of business found where former designer purchased equipment and continued production operations for predecessor's retail business.
The applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of business occurred between British Brand Clothes Limited and Antonacci Clothes Inc., and that Antonacci Clothes was bound by the union's bargaining rights.
British Brand had ceased its clothing production operations and terminated its employees.
Patrick Antonacci, a former designer and minority shareholder of British Brand, incorporated a new company, purchased British Brand's production equipment, and hired several former employees to perform contract work, including exclusively supplying British Brand's continuing retail operation.
The Board found that a sale of part of a business had occurred under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, as there was a substantial continuation of the predecessor's business organization, equipment, and key personnel.
The Board declined to order a representation vote, finding that the sale did not create a representation issue requiring a vote.
The application was granted.
Board has jurisdiction under section 124 to enforce oral grievance settlements made with apparent authority.
The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent employer failed to comply with an oral settlement of a prior grievance.
The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction to enforce an oral settlement.
The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that it has jurisdiction to enforce oral settlements and that there is no requirement for such settlements to be in writing.
On the merits, the Board found that the respondent's Installation Manager had apparent authority to enter into the settlement on behalf of the employer.
The Board directed the respondent to pay the agreed settlement amounts.
