M. Contini

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding the constitutionality of Bill 66, which amended the Labour Relations Act to deem municipalities as non-construction employers.

The union argued this violated section 2(d) of the Charter by nullifying their collective agreements and subcontracting protections.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board correctly applied binding precedent and that the amendments did not substantially interfere with the right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining.

The employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision finding that it failed to properly accommodate a paramedic who suffered a workplace injury.

The arbitrator held that under the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code, the employer was required to accommodate the paramedic by allowing him to 'ride third' in an ambulance once his medical restrictions permitted it, and that the employer failed to establish undue hardship.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and application of human rights principles to be reasonable.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent Innisfil Landfill Corporation requested an adjournment on the day before the hearing, citing unspecified personal and business reasons.

The Board denied the adjournment request, finding it untimely and lacking a cogent basis.

The application was withdrawn against the other respondents.

The Board found the proposed bargaining unit appropriate and, satisfied that more than 55% of the employees were members of the applicant, ordered that a certificate issue.

The applicant union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer raised preliminary objections regarding the applicant's standing, the appropriateness of the geographic area, and the lack of notice to employees and another union local.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objections, finding the applicant had standing and that notice was properly given.

The parties subsequently reached an agreement settling the appropriate bargaining unit and adjourning the related employer application.

The Board issued certificates to the applicant based on the agreed bargaining unit and membership evidence.

The union filed a complaint alleging the university violated the duty to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to negotiate the union's 9-point programme regarding the divestment of the Royal Conservatory of Music, refusing to disclose related information, and refusing to continue negotiations pending the outcome of the complaint.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the university's refusal to discuss the 9-point programme and its refusal to continue negotiations pending the complaint violated the duty to bargain in good faith.

However, the Board found no violation regarding the refusal to disclose information or alleged delay.

The Board directed the university to bargain in good faith and table a full package of proposals.

The applicant general contractor sought a cease-and-desist direction against the respondent union for picketing at a shopping mall construction site.

The union, which had no collective agreement with the applicant, picketed the site to protest the use of a non-union electrical subcontractor, causing unionized trades to refuse to cross the picket line.

The Board found that the picketing constituted acts that the union knew or ought to have known would cause an unlawful strike by other trades.

The Board issued a direction ordering the union to cease its picketing activities at the site.

The applicant union sought certification for full-time and part-time employees of the respondent hotel.

The employer challenged the union's membership evidence based on irregularities in the collection process, but the Board found the evidence reliable as the union had properly disclosed and corrected the issues.

The employer conceded to committing unfair labour practices, including discharging key union supporters.

The Board concluded that the employer's actions destroyed the free selection process, making it unlikely that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained in a representation vote.

Consequently, the Board certified the union under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act and ordered extensive remedial measures, including reinstatement, compensation, and union access to the workplace.

The complainant union brought section 89 complaints alleging two employees were unlawfully discharged.

The respondent employer acknowledged the unlawful terminations but disputed whether the employees adequately mitigated their losses.

The Board found that one employee reasonably mitigated her losses by seeking full-time employment to replace her part-time jobs.

For the second employee, the Board found he acted reasonably in turning down a job offer in another city due to financial constraints, but failed to mitigate his losses when he subsequently quit a part-time job before securing alternate full-time employment.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for full-time and part-time bargaining units at the respondent's hotel.

The parties agreed to exclude office and front desk staff but disputed the inclusion of switchboard operators.

The Board found that switchboard operators shared a closer community of interest with front desk and office staff and excluded them from the units.

The Board also resolved disputes over the employee status of several individuals, finding that an acting chef had ceased managerial duties before the application date, and that an employee terminated on the morning of the application date was still considered an employee for the purpose of the application.

The Board determined the membership percentages and directed the matter to be re-listed to hear outstanding issues regarding alleged discriminatory discharges.