28 total
Union breached duty of fair representation by assisting member's attacker with leave of absence without consulting victim.
The applicant, who was the victim of a vicious aggravated sexual assault by a co-worker, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union.
The union had assisted the attacker in obtaining a leave of absence to serve his criminal sentence without consulting the applicant or considering her interests.
The Board found that the union breached its duty under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to balance the competing interests of the two bargaining unit members and ignoring the applicant's concerns.
The leave of absence agreement was set aside, and the union was directed to reconsider the matter after obtaining the applicant's input.
Motion to strike allegations of employer support granted due to untimeliness and failure to provide particulars.
During a hearing for certification and an unfair labour practice application, the responding employer and the applicant union brought a motion to strike out certain allegations made by the intervenor union.
The intervenor had alleged employer support for the applicant union but failed to provide detailed particulars as directed by previous Board decisions.
The Board found the allegations to be untimely and lacking in the required particulars.
The Board also held that the reverse onus provision under section 96(5) of the Labour Relations Act did not apply to allegations of employer support.
The motion was granted, and the allegations relating to employer support were struck out.
Motion to dismiss unfair labour practice complaint denied as core allegations established a prima facie case.
The Labourers applied for certification to displace the Carpenters as the bargaining agent for employees of the employer.
The Carpenters filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer colluded with the Labourers by removing two carpenters from the bargaining unit and replacing them with employees who would vote for the Labourers.
The employer and the Labourers brought a motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case.
The Board struck late allegations filed by the Carpenters but found that the core allegations narrowly made out a prima facie case, particularly given the reverse onus in section 96(5) of the Act.
The motion to dismiss was denied and the complaint was directed to proceed to a hearing.
Preliminary motions regarding timeliness, adjournment, and consolidation dismissed; time limit to file grievance extended.
The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance regarding the grievor's surplus notice was untimely.
The union sought to adjourn the matter pending a decision by the Joint Insurance Benefits Review Committee (JIBROC) regarding the grievor's long-term income protection (LTIP) claim, or to consolidate the proceedings.
The arbitrator extended the time limit for filing the grievance, finding the delay was brief and the nature of the grievance significant.
The arbitrator dismissed the union's motions to adjourn or consolidate, concluding that the issue before the board was the propriety of the employer's actions in issuing the surplus notice, not the validity of the LTIP claim itself.
Grievances resolved by consent order in accordance with prior minutes of settlement.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order declaring that the grievances before it are to be dealt with in accordance with the minutes of settlement signed pertaining to GSB File #1588/95 and #1601/95.
Termination application given priority over combination application; petition found voluntary and representation vote ordered.
The union applied to combine the full-time and part-time bargaining units at a supermarket.
Shortly after, an employee applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights for the full-time unit.
The Board determined that the termination application should be given procedural priority over the combination application to preserve the employees' representation rights.
On the merits of the termination application, the Board found that the petition in support of termination was voluntary, despite the presence of the employer's children in the bargaining unit and the manner in which signatures were collected.
A representation vote was ordered.
Interim relief to restrict picketing denied as balance of harm favoured the union.
The applicant employer sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to restrict picketing at one of its stores by striking employees from other locations.
The employer argued the picketing breached the common law and caused undue disruption.
The majority of the Board dismissed the application, finding that the balance of harm favoured the union, given the delay in bringing the application, the imminent conclusion of the main hearing, and the significant impact an interim order would have on the employees' statutory right to picket.
A dissenting member would have granted the interim relief.
Union certified after employee petition opposing certification was found involuntary due to perceived employer interference.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent.
A group of employees filed a petition opposing the certification.
The Board found that the union had sufficient membership support for automatic certification, subject to the voluntariness of the petition.
After hearing evidence from the objectors, the union moved for a non-suit.
The Board granted the motion, finding the petition involuntary because it was circulated with the assistance of individuals closely associated with management and in a context where the employer had expressed opposition to the union.
As the petition was given no weight, the Board issued a certificate to the applicant union.
