Maurice A. Green

During a pre-hearing conference for a jurisdictional dispute regarding asbestos removal in residential buildings, the parties disagreed on whether the complainant employer was bound by a collective agreement in the residential sector.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that the employer, as a member of the Master Insulators Association of Ontario Inc., was bound by the collective agreement.

The Board found that the agreement's terms explicitly covered all sectors of the construction industry, except the electrical power systems sector, and the union's attempt to negotiate a separate residential agreement did not negate the existing agreement's application to the residential sector.

The applicant union, Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation (OSSTF), applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of clerical and secretarial support staff employed by the respondent board of education.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that OSSTF's constitution did not permit it to accept such employees into membership.

The Board reviewed the union's constitution and by-laws, which were framed exclusively around the teaching profession and professional educators.

The Board concluded that the phrase 'employed in an educational capacity' in the constitution could not be stretched to include clerical support staff.

As the union had no established practice of admitting non-teachers into membership, the Board found the employees were not eligible for membership in OSSTF.

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation (OSSTF) applied for certification to represent occasional teachers employed by the respondent board of education.

The respondent and the intervener union argued that OSSTF was not a trade union under the Labour Relations Act because its membership included principals and vice-principals who exercised managerial functions.

The Board held that OSSTF is a trade union, finding that the inclusion of managerial members does not disqualify an organization from being a trade union, especially given the statutory inclusion of principals in teacher bargaining units under other legislation.

The Board also established a new test for determining the composition of the bargaining unit for occasional teachers, rejecting the traditional 30/30-day rule in favour of a broader test including those actively at work on the application date or who had worked at least one day in the preceding twelve months.

Finally, the Board directed the employer to provide a list of employee names and addresses to facilitate a fair representation vote.

The complainant school board alleged that a mass resignation by summer school principals, vice-principals, and curriculum resource teachers constituted an unlawful strike under the Labour Relations Act, and that the teachers' union encouraged it.

The union had issued a 'pink letter' advising members not to accept summer positions due to a collective bargaining impasse.

The Board found that the resignees were employees who had already commenced preparatory duties, and their coordinated resignations to exert bargaining pressure amounted to an unlawful strike.

The Board issued a cease and desist direction against the union and its District 16 president for counselling and supporting the unlawful strike.

The applicant school board sought a declaration that the issuance of 'pink letters' by the respondent teachers' federations, advising members not to apply for or accept employment in the board's continuing education program (night school and summer school), constituted an unlawful strike.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

It held that the continuing education program was not a 'school program' within the meaning of the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, and therefore the concerted refusal to apply for positions did not constitute a strike under that Act.

Furthermore, the Board found that the teachers were not employees in respect of the continuing education program and had no obligation to staff it, meaning their actions did not constitute a strike under the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant employers referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent union and its members engaged in an unlawful strike.

The strike was triggered by a work assignment dispute and was instigated by a union job steward.

The Board found that the employees engaged in a concerted refusal to work, constituting an unlawful strike during the term of the collective agreement.

The Board held the union vicariously liable for the strike because it was instigated by its job steward, whose actions are considered union actions.

The Board awarded damages to the employers for costs directly attributable to the strike, including idle equipment and the cost of making up for the schedule delay.

The applicant union sought certification for a single bargaining unit of all occasional teachers employed by the respondent board of education.

The respondent argued for four separate units, dividing teachers by elementary/secondary panels and by short-term/long-term assignments.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rejected the short-term/long-term division, finding it would cause undue fragmentation given the fluid nature of occasional teaching assignments.

However, the Board accepted the division between elementary and secondary panels, citing historical dichotomies, different qualifications, and distinct bargaining priorities.

The Board also determined that its standard 'thirty day rule' would apply to calculate the number of employees in the bargaining units at the time of the application.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer breached the Labour Relations Act by refusing to execute a collective agreement based on its last offer.

The employer had insisted on a clause requiring employee ratification of the agreement.

After the employees rejected the offer but also voted against a strike, the union accepted the employer's offer.

The employer refused to sign, citing the lack of employee ratification.

The Board held that the employer's insistence on employee ratification and refusal to execute the agreement constituted an unlawful attempt to bypass the union and deal directly with employees, breaching sections 15 and 64 of the Act.

The Board directed the employer to execute the collective agreement.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers should be removed from certain designated employee bargaining agencies in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector.

The local unions argued that the International Association had not historically participated in bargaining and had expressly disclaimed liability under the provincial agreements.

The Board held that the International Association should remain part of the designations, as its involvement could provide a beneficial overview and maturity to the provincial bargaining process, fulfilling the intent of the legislation.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent rodmen employed by the respondent construction company.

The respondent and interveners alleged that the applicant unlawfully coerced the respondent into hiring two of its members by threatening to picket the construction site, which would likely cause an unlawful strike.

The Board found that the applicant's representative did threaten to picket the site if the respondent did not replace members of another union with its own members.

The Board held that this threat constituted a threat of an unlawful strike under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

Because the employment of the two union members was obtained through this unlawful conduct, the Board refused to recognize them as employees for the purpose of the certification application, resulting in the dismissal of the application due to insufficient membership support.

The complainants filed a complaint alleging that the respondents breached the Labour Relations Act by concluding collective agreements without consulting them or allowing ratification.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to strike out certain complainants, arguing they lacked the authority to commence the proceeding.

The Board held that the evidential burden to show authority rested with the complainants, as the facts were peculiarly within their knowledge, but the legal burden to prove lack of authority remained with the respondents.

The Board also dismissed the complaint under section 60 of the Act, finding that the duty of fair representation only applies to employees in a bargaining unit, not to trade unions or their representatives.

The matter was referred to the Registrar for continuation.

The applicant teachers' federation alleged that the respondent school board unlawfully locked out high school teachers when it closed the schools for two days during a work-to-rule campaign.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the school closure was motivated by collective bargaining considerations and thus constituted a lock-out rather than a purely administrative closure, the lock-out was lawful because the statutory preconditions—an ongoing lawful strike and public consideration of the teachers' final offer—had been met.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant alleged that the respondent trade union breached its duty of fair representation under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act by settling a grievance concerning compulsory overtime rather than taking it to arbitration.

The grievors had been suspended for refusing to work overtime during an annual plant shutdown.

The union processed the grievance, obtained a legal opinion indicating uncertain prospects of success, and ultimately negotiated a settlement that substituted written warnings for the suspensions, provided partial back pay, and secured double time for future shutdown overtime.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union carefully weighed the merits of the case and the interests of the bargaining unit, and that its decision to settle was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The applicant union sought certification for employees at one of the respondent's two plants in Metropolitan Toronto.

Initially, the union sought a single-plant unit while the employer argued for a multi-plant unit.

After a representation vote showed strong support for the union at the larger plant, the parties reversed their positions.

The Board applied the Usarco criteria to assess the community of interest between the two plants.

Finding no functional interdependence, separate hiring and supervision, and different products, the Board concluded there was no sound reason to sweep the smaller plant's employees into the bargaining unit.

A certificate was issued for the single plant.