OLRB 1992

The union referred a grievance to the Board alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to pay travel time to nine maintenance mechanics who attended a mandatory training course outside Metro Toronto boundaries.

The employer argued that attending a training course was a 'duty' rather than 'work' and that the travel expense provision only applied to the construction industry.

The Board rejected the employer's arguments, finding that the employees were performing work on behalf of the employer and that the plain language of the collective agreement entitled them to travel expense remuneration.

In an application for certification, the respondent alleged that a person for whom the applicant submitted membership evidence did not pay the required $1.00 fee.

A Labour Relations Officer's inquiry revealed that a fellow employee paid the fee on the signer's behalf, and the signer reimbursed the employee prior to the completion of the Form 9 Declaration.

The Board found this satisfied the requirement under section 1(1) of the Act and declined to direct a hearing into the non-pay allegation.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint against the respondent employer.

Instead of proceeding to a five-day hearing, the parties reached an omnibus settlement agreement that included conducting a representation vote.

The parties submitted their agreement to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for approval.

The Board approved the agreement, noting its mandate to facilitate the timely resolution of workplace disputes and finding no public policy reason to reject the parties' consensus.

The Board directed a representation vote for the agreed-upon bargaining unit and adjourned the unfair labour practice complaint sine die.

The complainant, a volunteer deputy fire chief, alleged he was removed from his position for seeking enforcement of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board found that while the complainant was dedicated and knowledgeable, he was also narrow-minded and confrontational.

The Township council dismissed him because they viewed him as a troublemaker who undermined the relationship between council and the fire department, not because of any anti-safety animus.

The reprisal complaint under section 24 of the Act was dismissed.

The applicants filed an unfair labour practice complaint and referred two grievances to arbitration, alleging the respondents failed to abide by work jurisdiction determinations and changed work methods to avoid assigning work to the applicants.

The respondents and intervener argued the matters were essentially jurisdictional disputes that should be deferred or dismissed.

The Board dismissed the preliminary motion to defer the unfair labour practice complaint and the mark-up grievance, finding they raised issues beyond mere work assignment, but adjourned the work assignment grievance.

The Board also granted the applicants leave to amend their complaint and granted the intervener full standing in the proceedings.

In a jurisdictional dispute complaint between the Labourers and the IBEW over the installation of precast concrete duct systems, the parties sought a preliminary ruling on the scope of relevant past practice evidence.

The IBEW argued that evidence should be restricted to the ICI sector but include all types of conduit duct banks.

The Labourers and the employer argued that evidence should be restricted to precast concrete duct systems but not limited to the ICI sector.

The Board ruled that the scope of past practice evidence would be restricted to precast concrete ducts in the ICI sector in Board Area No. 2, finding that expanding the scope would add significant hearing days without corresponding benefit.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer terminated two employees for their union organizing activities.

The Board found that the employer's owner and his brother made threats of closure and job loss if the union was successful, and subsequently terminated one employee and constructively dismissed another due to anti-union animus.

Given the severity of the employer's breaches of the Labour Relations Act, the Board concluded that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained in a representation vote.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 8 of the Act to certify the union without a vote.

The respondent employer and a group of employees requested reconsideration of the Board's decision to certify the applicant union in the construction industry.

They argued that the bargaining unit should have been described to conform with the provincial collective agreement, which included welders, rather than the designation orders, and that the failure to do so deprived them of proper notice.

The Board dismissed the requests, finding that the bargaining unit must be described by reference to the designation orders and that the notices provided were sufficient and proper.

The complainant filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

The complainant, a call-in employee, was terminated by the employer for alleged unavailability.

The union president failed to return any of the complainant's numerous telephone calls, did not respond to her letter, and failed to investigate her claims that the employer's records were inaccurate.

The Board found that the union's failure to communicate with the complainant and investigate her concerns was arbitrary and constituted a breach of section 69.

The determination of remedial relief was deferred.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 126 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer failed to pay travel time.

As a preliminary matter, the applicant argued the grievance had already been settled at Step Three of the collective agreement's grievance procedure by a joint Labour-Management Relations Committee.

The respondent argued the Committee's decision was not a binding settlement because the respondent did not agree to it, and that denying access to arbitration violated the Act.

The majority of the Board upheld the preliminary motion, finding the collective agreement empowered the Committee to issue a binding settlement and that this mechanism did not conflict with the statutory scheme.

The Board directed the respondent to comply with the settlement.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the motion, arguing the Committee process denied the parties their statutory right to an impartial arbitration.

The applicant union sought leave to withdraw its application for certification after meeting with a Labour Relations Officer.

The respondent employer requested that the application be dismissed and a six-month bar be imposed on future applications, noting a previous withdrawn application.

The Board dismissed the application in accordance with its Practice Notes but declined to impose a bar.

Applying the principles from Amarcord Carpenters Ltd., the Board found that the circumstances did not warrant a bar, as the withdrawal was not made in anticipation of defeat at a representation vote, nor were there special and extreme circumstances.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 126 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer argued that the grievance should be dismissed due to delay, laches, and the abandonment of bargaining rights prior to the introduction of province-wide bargaining.

The Board found that while Local 493 had delayed in asserting its rights, Local 607 had not abandoned its bargaining rights, meaning the employer was bound to the province-wide ICI collective agreement.

However, due to Local 493's inordinate delay and failure to enforce its rights, which lulled the employer into believing it was not bound, the Board held that the union was estopped from asserting its rights in this specific grievance.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) brought an application under the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act, alleging that a contract between the Ontario Science Centre and a packaging company for the construction of crates constituted a transfer of part of the Crown's undertaking.

The union argued that its bargaining rights should follow the work performed by the subcontractor.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the packaging company had merely acquired the right to supply goods and services to the Crown using its own undertaking, which did not amount to a transfer of part of the Crown's undertaking.

The Board previously directed the respondent to reinstate the complainant and compensate him for his losses.

The parties were unable to resolve the amount of compensation, specifically whether the complainant satisfied his obligation to mitigate his losses.

The Board found that the complainant made reasonable efforts to mitigate his losses by searching for jobs, registering with Manpower Temporary Services, and contacting numerous firms.

The respondent was directed to fully compensate the complainant for his losses, with interest.

The complainants alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act regarding a Pay Equity Plan.

At the hearing, the complainants moved to adjourn the proceedings pending a related court application, while the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed both motions, finding that the complaint arguably supported a breach of the duty of fair representation and that an adjournment was not appropriate given the delay and the Board's exclusive jurisdiction over fair representation complaints.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent hospital violated the statutory freeze period under section 81(2) of the Labour Relations Act by freezing the anniversary increments of non-unionized employees after the union applied for certification.

The respondent argued that the freeze was part of a broader response to funding constraints and applied to all non-unionized employees, consistent with its past practice of treating all such employees alike.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the respondent's actions maintained the established pattern of operations and fell within the reasonable expectations of employees given the economic circumstances.

A dissenting member would have found a violation, arguing the established pattern was the regular granting of the increments.

The applicant trade union sought a declaration that the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and the Pinecrest-Queensway Health and Community Services constituted a single employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively, that there had been a sale of a business under section 64.

The union argued that the Region's funding, provision of personnel, and historical support demonstrated common control or a transfer of social service delivery.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the P-Q Centre operated autonomously under its own Board of Directors and that the Region acted merely as a supportive funder and participating agency, without exercising control or transferring its statutory responsibilities.

The applicant union filed applications for certification to represent taxi drivers operating under the banners of various taxicab brokers in Metropolitan Toronto.

The central issue was whether the drivers were 'dependent contractors' under section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, or independent contractors.

The Board examined the economic relationship between the drivers and the brokers, noting that the drivers derived a substantial portion of their income from dispatched fares and corporate account chits provided by the brokers.

The Board also found that the brokers exercised significant control over the drivers through rules, policies, and the threat of suspension from the dispatch system.

The Board concluded that the drivers were in a position of economic dependence and under an obligation to perform duties for the brokers, more closely resembling the relationship of an employee than that of an independent contractor.

The drivers were therefore found to be dependent contractors.

The complainant employer filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of nursing duties to members of CUPE rather than ONA.

ONA brought a motion requesting the Board defer consideration of the complaint pending the disposition of its grievances at arbitration.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the dispute transcended the collective agreement issues raised in the grievances and had a substantial jurisdictional element.

The Board concluded it was the appropriate forum to resolve the work assignment dispute under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer requested an adjournment of the proceedings pending the disposition of an application for judicial review of a related Board decision.

The applicant unions opposed the request.

The Board denied the adjournment, finding that the respondent failed to establish that the balance of convenience favoured an adjournment or that it would suffer substantial irreparable prejudice if the matter proceeded.

The Board directed the Registrar to schedule the applications for hearing.