Mark Wright

During a jurisdictional dispute consultation, the Vice-Chair sought submissions on whether a Board Member should continue on the panel given his past employment as a senior official in Ontario Hydro's labour relations area.

One of the responding unions objected, arguing a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Board dismissed the objection, finding that the Board Member had no actual involvement in the specific 1979 dispute being relied upon, and his general background and experience in construction labour relations at Ontario Hydro did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant union filed an application for certification for a bargaining unit of electricians.

The responding party, a general contractor, disputed that it was the employer of the electricians, arguing they were employed by its subcontractor.

The subcontractor had experienced financial difficulties, and the general contractor had begun paying the electricians directly.

The Board applied the York Condominium factors and found that by paying the employees directly and assuming control over their employment to ensure the work continued, the general contractor became the true employer on the date of the application.

The Board directed that the ballots cast in the representation vote be counted.

The employer applied for a first contract direction under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union raised preliminary objections, arguing the applications were premature and should be dismissed.

The Board found the applications were premature but cured the irregularity under section 123 of the Act.

The Board further determined that the applications were properly governed by the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act (PSLRTA), which required the matter to be heard by a single vice-chair.

Ultimately, the parties concluded collective bargaining and ratified a Memorandum of Agreement, prompting the employer to seek leave to withdraw the applications.

The Board granted leave to withdraw.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging intimidation of employees prior to a representation vote, but failed to file a detailed statement of representations within the five-day period required by the Board's rules.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the complaint was untimely, failed to disclose a prima facie case, and that a bar should be imposed on the union's certification application due to a prior withdrawal.

The Board condoned the late filing, finding the balance of convenience favoured the union and the employer suffered no significant prejudice.

The Board also found the complaint disclosed a prima facie case and declined to impose a bar, as the prior withdrawal was to correct an employee estimate and not an abuse of process.

The employer alleged that the union obtained its certification by fraud because it estimated 57 employees in the bargaining unit on its application, despite the employer previously stating there were 64.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the test for fraud from Derry v. Peek, which requires a false representation made knowingly, without belief in its truth, or recklessly.

The Board found that the union representatives had an honest belief in their estimate, which was based on a practical assessment by the chief steward.

The Board concluded that the union's conduct did not amount to fraud and upheld the certificate.

The Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 applied for certification of a bargaining unit of plumbers, plumbers' apprentices, and construction labourers employed by Rolan Plumbing in the non-ICI construction sector.

The United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, Local 46 intervened, arguing that individuals performing plumbing work without proper certification under the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act (TQAA) could not be included in the bargaining unit as construction labourers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the TQAA applies to non-ICI certification applications and that individuals performing plumbing work in contravention of the TQAA cannot be characterized as construction labourers.

Consequently, such individuals are excluded from the list of employees for the purpose of the certification application.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees and the Ontario Nurses Association applied for certification and a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, concerning a retirement home, Livingston Lodge.

The unions argued that the various Meadowcroft entities and Nutra 2000, which was sub-contracted to manage the staff, were under common control and direction.

The Board found that the core activities of the retirement home were contracted out to Nutra 2000, but Meadowcroft retained strict control over the budget, staffing complement, and operations.

The Board concluded that the entities were engaged in related activities under common control and direction, and exercised its discretion to issue a related employer declaration to ensure a stable foundation for collective bargaining.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant claimed the union improperly withdrew an overtime grievance, poorly drafted a grievance regarding sick pay and legal fees following criminal charges, and failed to consult him regarding a workplace transfer.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union reasonably relied on a legal opinion when withdrawing the overtime grievance, that the sick pay grievance was understood and resolved, and that the union promptly corrected the transfer issue when notified.

The Board concluded there was no evidence of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union.

The applicant union filed a second application for certification after withdrawing its first application due to irregularities in the membership evidence (pre-witnessed cards).

The responding employer argued that the new membership evidence was tainted by the union's prior conduct, including an allegedly fraudulent unfair labour practice complaint and the earlier card irregularities.

The Board found no evidence of impropriety in the collection of the fresh membership evidence and declined to dismiss the application or order a representation vote, distinguishing cases where actual fraud on the Board had occurred.