Norm Keith

The complainant, a carpenter and health and safety representative, alleged he was laid off in reprisal for his safety activities, contrary to section 24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board found that the employer failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for selecting the complainant for layoff, noting his average or better work performance and the friction caused by his safety duties.

Concluding that the layoff was motivated at least in part by his health and safety role, the Board ordered his reinstatement with compensation.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board challenging a three-week suspension imposed on the grievor for insubordination and the use of abusive language towards management.

The employer relied on the culminating incident and several past incidents to justify the penalty.

The Board found that the employer improperly relied on past incidents that did not form part of the grievor's formal disciplinary record.

However, given the grievor's two prior written warnings and the severity of his insubordination, the Board exercised its discretion under section 44(9) of the Labour Relations Act to substitute a ten-day suspension for the original three-week penalty.

The complainant, a discharged employee, alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to take his discharge grievance to arbitration.

The discharge arose from a physical altercation in the parking lot involving the complainant, the union plant chairman, and a union steward.

The Board found that the plant chairman, who had instigated the altercation by greasing the complainant's car, presented the case to the union membership without disclosing his own involvement or conflict of interest.

The Board concluded that the union's decision not to arbitrate was tainted by this conflict of interest and animosity, amounting to arbitrary, discriminatory, and bad faith conduct.

The Board ordered the union and employer to arbitrate the grievance forthwith and directed the union to engage independent counsel jointly chosen with the complainant.

The applicant sought an exemption from the union security provisions of a first collective agreement on the grounds of religious conviction or belief under section 47 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant, a Seventh Day Adventist, testified that his religious beliefs prevented him from joining or financially supporting a trade union.

Despite having previously paid union dues at another employer, the Board accepted his explanation that his religious convictions had since re-awakened.

The majority of the Board found the applicant's beliefs to be sincerely held and granted the exemption, directing that an amount equal to union dues be remitted to a mutually agreed charitable organization.

One Board member dissented, questioning the sincerity of the applicant's beliefs.

The complainant union alleged that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by laying off five employees because they supported the union's certification application.

The employer contended the lay offs were for bona fide business reasons due to a lack of work.

Applying the reverse onus under section 89(5) of the Act, the Board found the employer provided a credible explanation that the lay offs were strictly for business reasons and untainted by anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit consisting of employees at the Orangeville Sports Complex, claiming craft status under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act based on the requirement for a 'B' class refrigeration ticket.

The respondent municipality argued for a comprehensive unit of all outside employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant failed to establish the requirements for a craft unit, noting a lack of evidence of a history of separate bargaining for such employees.

The Board determined the proposed unit was inappropriate and, finding the applicant had less than forty-five percent membership in the appropriate broader unit, dismissed the application.

Following a finding of liability for breaching the hiring hall provisions of a collective agreement, the respondent employer challenged the quantum of damages.

The employer argued that the union was required to identify the specific members who lost work and prove that they had attempted to mitigate their damages.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rejected this argument, holding that the union's out-of-work list established a prima facie case for damages.

The Board found that the burden shifted to the employer to lead evidence of a failure to mitigate, which it had not done.

The Board ordered the employer to pay $6,885.50 in damages to the union on behalf of its unemployed members.