OLRB 1992

The applicant sought to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights in the ICI sector of the construction industry.

The union argued that the applicant and other individuals supporting the application were not 'employees' in the bargaining unit because they were not members in good standing and were not hired through the union's hiring hall, in violation of the collective agreement.

The Board applied the April Waterproofing principle, finding that because the union had actively asserted its rights under the collective agreement by filing a grievance prior to the termination application, the continued employment of these individuals contravened the agreement.

Consequently, they were not considered employees in the bargaining unit for the purpose of the application, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the respondent employer, which installs and maintains cellular phone antennae and support structures.

The respondent raised a preliminary constitutional objection, arguing its operations were integral to federal telecommunications undertakings (Bell Cellular and Cantel) and thus subject to federal labour relations jurisdiction.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the test from Northern Telecom and found that the respondent's day-to-day operations were extensively integrated with and vital to the functioning of the federal cellular networks.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the respondent's labour relations fell within federal jurisdiction and dismissed the applications for lack of jurisdiction.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint and an application for a declaration of an unlawful lock-out, alleging the employer threatened to move part of its operations to a new location not covered by the collective agreement unless the union agreed to concessions.

The employer subsequently moved the Packaged Gas plant to a new location in Oakville.

The Board found that the scope clause of the existing collective agreement, which covered all employees at the employer's plant in Oakville, applied to the new facility.

Furthermore, the Board held that the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith by failing to disclose its plans for technological change and relocation during the recent round of collective bargaining when specifically asked by the union.

The applicant filed a subsequent application for a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the respondent unions after the terminal date of an earlier, identical application by a different employee.

The Board deferred the subsequent application pending the resolution of the earlier one, pursuant to section 105(3) of the Act.

The applicant requested reconsideration, arguing a breach of natural justice and procedural errors.

The Board denied the request, finding that the parties had a full opportunity to make written submissions and that deferral was appropriate to avoid duplicative proceedings.

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 applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of a business and intermingling of employees occurred between the respondent companies, and requested a representation vote.

The Board found that a sale of a business had occurred when Union Felt purchased Almac Industries Inc. and subsequently integrated operations.

The Board concluded that intermingling of employees had taken place and ordered a representation vote to determine which of the two trade unions should represent the combined bargaining unit.

Following a finding that the complainant was unlawfully discharged for raising safety concerns after a workplace injury, the Board held a hearing to determine compensation.

The Board awarded $500 in damages for mental distress, finding that the abrupt and unlawful termination exacerbated the complainant's existing post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Board also awarded $1,700 for dental work that would have been covered by the employer's benefits plan had the complainant not been unlawfully discharged, as well as outstanding vacation pay.

One Board member dissented on the award of mental distress damages.

The Operative Plasterers' and Cement Masons' International Association, Local 598 requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision that dismissed its unfair labour practice complaint against Metro Concrete Floors and determined voter eligibility in a certification application by the Labourers' International Union, Local 506.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no obvious error, no new evidence, and that Local 598 had a full opportunity to make representations at the original hearing.

The Board also declined to apply a new voter eligibility practice retroactively to a case where the vote had already been taken.

The applicant union filed an application for certification to displace the incumbent union.

During the application process, the employer and the incumbent union negotiated and signed a renewal collective agreement.

The applicant argued that this violated the statutory freeze under section 81(2) of the Labour Relations Act and constituted unlawful employer support under section 49.

The Board held that the statutory freeze does not suspend the duty to bargain between an employer and an incumbent union.

The negotiation and conclusion of a renewal agreement do not, in and of themselves, violate the freeze or constitute unlawful employer support.

The application for certification was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant union sought certification to represent limousine drivers, displacing the incumbent Teamsters union.

The respondent employers argued the applicant was not a trade union and was employer-dominated.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the applicant met the definition of a trade union, an employer (a co-operative corporation formed by the drivers' association to compete in the limousine business) had participated in its formation and administration.

Consequently, section 13 of the Labour Relations Act barred the Board from certifying the applicant, and the applications were dismissed.

The respondent employer requested that the Board revoke its earlier certification decision and issue a new one after reviewing late-filed sample signatures.

The Board noted that while sample signatures are an important safeguard, expedition is crucial in labour relations matters.

The signatures were filed 19 days after the terminal date.

The Board declined to reconsider its decision, emphasizing the need for timely processing of certification applications.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer violated the Labour Relations Act by discharging one employee, demoting another, and engaging in anti-union communications during an organizing campaign.

The employer argued that the discharge was solely due to the employee's unauthorized taking of confidential employee phone numbers for the union's use.

The Board found that the severity of the discharge and the demotion were tainted by anti-union animus, as the employer failed to consider mitigating factors and used the incidents to deliver anti-union messages.

The Board also held that the employer's statements during mandatory employee meetings crossed the line from protected free speech into undue influence by linking unionization with job losses.

The complaint was allowed in part, with reinstatement ordered for the affected employees and a posting of a notice to employees.