Michael A. Church

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit consisting solely of registered and graduate nursing assistants (RNAs) at the respondent hospital.

The hospital opposed the proposed unit, arguing it would cause undue fragmentation and that a broader unit including service or paramedical employees was appropriate.

The Board applied the test from Hospital for Sick Children and found that an RNA-only unit was not appropriate in these circumstances, as it would lead to undue fragmentation and potential labour relations problems, particularly given the overlap in functions and the hospital's existing employee relations structure.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union and respondent employer were unable to resolve monetary issues for a first collective agreement and agreed to have the Ontario Labour Relations Board arbitrate the dispute under section 41(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board determined the outstanding issues, including wages, signing bonuses, banquet gratuities, and the term of the agreement.

Taking into account the recession's impact on the hotel industry and the employees' minimum wage status, the Board awarded a two-year term, a wage grid based on length of service, specific signing bonuses for full-time and part-time employees, and excluded porters from banquet gratuities.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer's decision to lay off several employees was motivated by anti-union animus.

The employer argued the layoffs were strictly due to the loss of a major contract and a general economic downturn.

The Board found that while there were valid business reasons for downsizing, the specific selection of employees for the July layoffs was tainted by anti-union animus, as the laid-off employees were key union supporters.

The Board also found that letters distributed by the employer's president crossed the line of permissible free speech into undue influence by linking unionization to job insecurity.

A petition circulated by employees opposing the union was deemed involuntary due to the climate of fear regarding job security.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the unlawfully laid-off employees with compensation and certified the union.

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights under section 57(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent union raised a preliminary objection that the application was untimely because a collective agreement had already been reached.

The Board found that the union and the employer had reached a final resolution of the collective agreement terms on July 11, prior to the filing of the termination application on July 12.

The Board rejected the employer's argument that the agreement was conditional on the resolution of outstanding unfair labour practice complaints.

Consequently, the termination application was dismissed as untimely.

In a jurisdictional dispute complaint between the Boilermakers and the Labourers regarding demolition work, the Labourers sought to adduce viva voce evidence on a preliminary basis to challenge the Board's earlier ruling on the parameters of admissible past practice evidence.

The Board dismissed the request, holding that it has inherent jurisdiction to determine the relevance of evidence without first hearing it, and that evidence regarding the demolition of structures other than field-erected, steam-generating boilers in an operating environment is irrelevant to the specific work in dispute.

The applicant union applied for certification of carpenters employed by the respondent.

The respondent argued it had no employees, claiming the two individuals in question were independent contractors.

The Board examined the relationship, noting the individuals were paid piecework rates, supplied only their labour and tools, and were economically dependent on the respondent.

The Board concluded they were dependent contractors and therefore employees under the Labour Relations Act, and issued certificates to the applicant.

The complainant trade union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer violated the Labour Relations Act by making intimidating comments to a union official and subsequently laying him off from his position as an assistant dispatcher.

The employer claimed the layoff was due to a business slowdown and the employee's loss of his driver's licence.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving that the layoff was free from anti-union animus.

The Board concluded that the elimination of the assistant dispatcher position was motivated, at least in part, by the employee's participation in Board proceedings and his union activity.

The Board ordered the employer to reinstate the employee with full compensation and to post a notice in the workplace.

The parties requested the Ontario Labour Relations Board to arbitrate the settlement of their first collective agreement under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

As a preliminary matter, the Board ruled that the parties' conduct during negotiations is irrelevant to determining the contents of the arbitrated agreement.

On the merits, the Board determined the appropriate terms for hours of work, pension contributions, and wage rates by comparing other collective agreements in the industry and geographic area, while accounting for the employer's specific operational context and the pre-existing collective agreement with a displaced union.

The Board ordered the inclusion of the arbitrated terms and made the wage increases retroactive.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer unlawfully discharged a key union organizer and interfered with the organizing campaign.

The employer claimed the discharge and employee communications were due to a price war with competitors.

The Board found the employer's explanation for the discharge lacked credibility and concluded the employee was terminated for his trade union activity, violating the Labour Relations Act.

Finding that the employer's illegal conduct made it unlikely that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained through a representation vote, the Board certified the union pursuant to section 8 of the Act and ordered the reinstatement of the discharged employee with compensation.

The applicant employer sought a declaration that the respondent employees engaged in an unlawful strike by refusing to cross a picket line established by another union at a construction site.

The respondents conceded the facts but argued their refusal was justified due to threats of violence on the picket line, analogizing to the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board found no legal justification for the unlawful strike, granted the declaration, and issued cease and desist directions.

The complainant union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of work by a subcontractor.

The respondent union had initially filed a grievance demanding the work, but later withdrew it.

The respondent union then brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction or should decline to inquire into the complaint since there was no longer a demand to change the work assignment.

The Board held that, assuming it had jurisdiction, it was appropriate to exercise its discretion not to inquire further into the complaint because the underlying dispute had disappeared with the withdrawal of the grievance.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to adequately represent him after he was laid off and lost his seniority.

The complainant claimed he had arranged a fake lay-off with the employer to hide income from his ex-wife, but the employer later treated him as a new employee.

The union filed a grievance but withdrew it after the complainant stormed out of a meeting.

The Board rejected the complainant's version of events, finding he had voluntarily quit, and dismissed the complaint as there was no evidence the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.

The applicant, an employee, brought three applications under section 57 of the Labour Relations Act to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent unions for three bargaining units at the intervener's store.

The unions challenged the voluntariness of the petitions, arguing that the labour relations environment was turbulent, the evidence of circulation was deficient, and a key supporter of the petitions was perceived as acting on behalf of management.

The Board found that the labour relations background did not thwart free expression and that the petitions were circulated voluntarily.

The Board also concluded that the key supporter, a head cashier, did not exercise managerial functions and would not have been perceived by employees as acting for management.

Furthermore, the Board held that the applicant was competent to bring the applications for all three units.

The Board directed that representation votes be taken.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the applications, finding that the key supporter was perceived as an arm of management.

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

The respondent employer argued it was not an employer in the construction industry, as the work performed at a pulp and paper mill during an annual shutdown was maintenance, not construction.

The Board applied the Master Insulators' test and found the work—reinforcing a dissolving tank and replacing a vapour pipe—was maintenance work intended to preserve the functioning of the system, rather than repair work to restore a non-functioning system.

Consequently, the application could not proceed under the construction industry provisions.

However, treating it as a regular certification application, the Board found the applicant had sufficient membership support and issued a certificate for an all-employee bargaining unit.

One Board member dissented, characterizing the work as repair.

In a jurisdictional dispute complaint between the Boilermakers and the Labourers over the demolition of a boiler, the Board convened a hearing to determine the scope of evidence of Area and Employer Practice to be admitted.

The Metropolitan Toronto Demolition Contractors Association Inc. sought status to intervene and requested an adjournment to retain counsel.

The Board denied the adjournment request, noting the Association's prior notice and failure to participate earlier.

On the evidentiary issue, the Board ruled that evidence would be limited to the dismantling of field-erected, steam-generating boilers for industrial application, originally erected using Boilermakers, in an operating environment in Ontario, as this constitutes the 'particular work' under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the duty to bargain in good faith by refusing to negotiate pension issues separately from a joint union committee.

The employer argued the union had irrevocably ceded its right to bargain pensions separately by participating in the joint committee in previous rounds.

The Board held that the union was entitled to unilaterally withdraw from the joint committee with adequate notice.

The employer violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by pressing its demand for joint bargaining to impasse and refusing to receive the union's pension proposals.

However, the employer's direct communications with employees regarding its bargaining position were found to be permissible.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer terminated an agency worker for signing a union card, instituted a new check-in procedure during the statutory freeze period, and failed to pay conduct money to summonsed witnesses.

The employer failed to attend the hearing.

The Board found the agency worker was an employee in substance and that her termination violated the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also found the new check-in procedure violated the statutory freeze and ordered the employer to pay the outstanding conduct money to prevent an abuse of process.

The employer was ordered to reinstate the worker, compensate her, and post a notice of its violations.

In an application for certification, the respondent employer challenged the union's membership evidence, alleging a 'non-pay' issue.

An employee had borrowed the required $1.00 membership fee from a co-worker and paid it to the union organizer.

The employer argued this did not constitute a financial sacrifice or a payment 'on his own behalf' under section 1(1)(l) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that the borrowed dollar became the employee's money to dispose of as he pleased, and its payment satisfied the statutory requirement.

The matter was re-listed to determine remaining issues regarding employee status and part-time exclusions.

Two unions applied for certification of the respondent's employees.

The incumbent union, UFCW, argued that its existing collective agreement with the predecessor employer automatically renewed and acted as a bar to the applications.

The applicant, CAW, argued that UFCW had abandoned its bargaining rights by failing to enforce the collective agreement for over a year after the respondent purchased the plant.

The Board found that the UFCW's decision not to enforce the agreement was a strategic choice to allow the new employer to establish itself financially, not an abandonment of bargaining rights.

The Board held that the collective agreement automatically renewed and constituted a bar to the certification applications, which were accordingly dismissed.

The applicant unions sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act to bind Delform Construction Limited and Ilena Construction Limited to the provincial ICI agreement binding Hardrock Forming Company.

The Board found that Delform had an established collective bargaining relationship with Labourers' Local 183.

The Board dismissed the application, reasoning that issuing a related employer declaration would create a conflict with Local 183's established bargaining rights and precipitate a jurisdictional dispute.