OLRB 1994

The union filed an application alleging the employer violated section 41.1 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to negotiate an adjustment plan following the announcement of a major workforce reduction.

During the proceedings, the parties engaged in collective bargaining and reached a new collective agreement that addressed the rights of surplus employees.

The employer argued the application was moot.

The Board agreed, finding that the parties had practically resolved the issues by negotiating adjustment plan matters during collective bargaining.

The Board dismissed the application on the grounds of mootness and declined to grant remedial relief, noting it would serve no labour relations purpose.

The applicant union filed a complaint alleging that the employer improperly assigned occasional teacher work to members of another union.

The employer and the responding union argued that the dispute involved interpreting the Education Act and should be left to the Minister of Education.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that it has jurisdiction under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act to resolve work assignment disputes, even if the assignment might also violate another statute.

The Board directed the parties to file lists of tasks, witnesses, and evidence in preparation for a hearing.

The applicant trade union sought certification for employees at a Canadian Tire outlet.

Objecting employees challenged the constitutionality of section 8(4) of the Labour Relations Act, which precludes the Board from considering post-application evidence of employees revoking union support, arguing it violated their Charter rights to freedom of expression, association, and equality.

The Board dismissed the Charter challenges, finding any infringement of expression was justified under section 1, and rejected claims of defective membership evidence based on alleged misrepresentations by rank-and-file organizers.

The Board also affirmed the appropriateness of the union's proposed 'all employee' bargaining unit and determined that a department manager did not exercise sufficient managerial authority to be excluded from the unit.

The applicant union applied to certify a bargaining unit of 17 security officers and to combine it with an existing full-time bargaining unit of approximately 6,000 employees.

The employer opposed the combination, arguing that under section 6(6) of the Labour Relations Act, the security officers' duties of monitoring other employees would give rise to a conflict of interest if they were included in the same unit.

The Board heard evidence regarding the security officers' duties, which included monitoring access, conducting investigations, and preparing reports that could lead to discipline.

The Board concluded that the monitoring duties raised a real possibility of a conflict of interest, satisfying the test under section 6(6), and remitted the matters back to the parties.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer laid off an employee due to anti-union animus.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the application should be dismissed due to undue delay, as the union waited approximately eight and a half months after the layoff to file the complaint.

The Board applied the factors from the Mississauga decision and found that the delay was undue, particularly given the lack of justification provided by the union and the potential for retrospective financial liability.

The application was dismissed on the basis of undue delay without considering the merits.

The applicant employer sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to stay a 'bottom line' certification decision pending the issuance of detailed written reasons and the disposition of an application for reconsideration.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the harm to the union and the employees caused by further delay in the certification process significantly outweighed any potential harm to the employer.

The Board emphasized that expedition is critical in labour relations and that staying a decision to allow a party to assess its position for judicial review would undermine the purpose of issuing bottom line decisions.

The applicants brought jurisdictional dispute applications regarding the assignment of work for the fabrication and installation of a monorail at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1000 raised a preliminary constitutional challenge, arguing that labour relations at the nuclear facility fall under federal jurisdiction.

The Board applied the functional test and determined that while the production of nuclear energy and its attendant safety concerns are within federal jurisdiction, the fabrication and installation of the monorail is not integral to the federal undertaking.

Having found it had jurisdiction, the Board directed Ontario Hydro to assign the work to the applicants based on collective agreements and historical practice.

The union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the employer laid off the grievor out of seniority order.

The employer argued that the grievor had lost his seniority when he failed to return to work following a telephone recall, and that the union was estopped from relying on the collective agreement's requirement for written notice by registered mail because it had acquiesced to telephone recalls in the past.

The Board found no estoppel, as the union had never agreed that employees could be stripped of seniority for failing to respond to a telephone recall.

Applying the strict language of the collective agreement, the Board held that the employer breached the agreement by removing the grievor's seniority without sending written notice by registered mail.

The Board directed that the grievor be reinstated with full seniority and compensated for lost income.

The applicant union sought a determination under section 73.2(12) of the Labour Relations Act regarding the employer's use of specified replacement workers during a strike at its brewery.

The employer argued that replacement workers were necessary to operate the power plant to prevent danger to life, health, or safety, and to prevent serious deterioration of equipment.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while an engineer was required to monitor the plant even if production ceased, the employer already had two managerial employees capable of safely operating the plant.

The Board concluded that the employer failed to establish that additional specified replacement workers were necessary within the meaning of section 73.2(3).

The application was granted and the employer was prohibited from using the specified replacement workers.

The applicant trade union alleged that the employer discharged two internal union organizers during an organizing drive for reasons related to their trade union activities, in violation of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the employer's explanations for the discharges were implausible and that the decisions were tainted by anti-union animus.

The Board also found that the employer's subsequent work assignments upon the employees' interim reinstatement were discriminatory and constituted further violations of the Act.

The Board ordered the permanent reinstatement of the employees with compensation for lost wages.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by prohibiting editorial employees from wearing union buttons while meeting with the public on company business.

The Board found that wearing union buttons to support collective bargaining objectives is a lawful union activity protected by the Act.

The Board concluded that the employer's rule was inconsistently applied and motivated, at least in part, by an anti-union animus, thereby violating sections 65 and 67 of the Act.

A declaration of the violation was issued, though no further remedy was ordered.

The applicant filed an unfair labour practice complaint against his union and former employer, alleging multiple breaches of the Labour Relations Act over a seven-year period.

The respondents raised preliminary objections, including that the Vice-Chair lacked jurisdiction to sit alone and that the complaint should be dismissed for undue delay.

The Vice-Chair ruled he had jurisdiction to sit alone as an administrative decision by the Chair.

On the issue of delay, the Board dismissed most of the allegations, noting the critical importance of timeliness in the construction industry and hiring hall context.

However, the Board allowed the allegation regarding the applicant's removal from the hiring hall list following his expulsion from the union to proceed, finding the nine-month delay was not fatal given the severe impact of the removal and the ongoing internal union appeal.

The applicant, an owner-operator, filed a complaint alleging the union breached sections 70 and 82(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant alleged the union acted arbitrarily by transferring him to a different pipeline loop and introducing a rotation system.

The Board dismissed this portion of the complaint, finding the union's actions were reasonable and in the best interests of the owner-operators.

However, the Board found the union violated section 82(2) by refusing to accept the applicant's union dues and renew his membership as a penalty for filing the complaint.

The Board ordered the union to compensate the applicant for lost earnings and restore his name to the dispatch list upon payment of dues.

The applicant, a union member, filed a complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act during the negotiation and ratification of a third shift agreement at the General Motors Oshawa truck plant.

The applicant also alleged that the union and company intimidated potential witnesses in violation of section 82.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union's conduct was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and that the ratification process was consistent with past practice.

The Board also found no evidence to support the allegations of intimidation.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to process his harassment grievance to arbitration.

At the hearing, after the applicant testified, the Board entertained a non-suit motion without requiring the union to elect whether to call evidence.

The Board found that the applicant had failed to provide the union or the employer with any details of his harassment allegations despite repeated requests and opportunities to do so.

The Board concluded the union's decision not to proceed to arbitration was reasonable and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer contravened section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act by using six individuals to perform bargaining unit work during a lawful strike.

The individuals had been hired or transferred into pre-existing managerial positions after notice to bargain was given, without increasing the overall managerial complement.

The majority of the Board held that the plain language and purposive interpretation of section 73.1 prohibited the employer from using these individuals to perform the work of striking employees, regardless of whether the overall number of managers increased.

The employer was ordered to cease and desist from using the individuals for bargaining unit work.

A dissenting opinion argued this interpretation created an inequity not intended by the Legislature.

The responding employer sought reconsideration of a Board decision certifying the applicant trade union.

The employer argued it did not understand the Minutes of Settlement it signed, lacked legal advice, and raised issues regarding membership evidence and the sector of the construction industry in which employees were working.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no obvious error or new evidence to justify reconsideration.

The Board held that the employer's failure to obtain legal advice was not a basis for reconsideration and that the statutory framework for construction industry certification was properly applied.

The 27 complainants, unsuccessful applicants for a supervisory position at Ontario Hydro in 1990, alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by withdrawing their group grievances in 1992.

The union and the employer (as intervenor) raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board should decline to inquire into the complaint due to delay, the fact that a parallel complaint by another unsuccessful applicant had already been dismissed, and the practical impossibility of providing a meaningful remedy years after the fact.

The Board agreed, exercising its discretion under section 91 to dismiss the complaint without a full hearing on the merits.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) applied for a declaration under subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that West Lincoln Memorial Hospital and Deer Park Villa constitute a single employer.

ONA sought to have the Hospital's collective agreement apply to nurses at the Villa to avoid an 'ability to pay' argument in an upcoming interest arbitration.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that while the entities were under common control, there was no erosion of bargaining rights or other mischief that subsection 1(4) was designed to remedy.

The Board held that the provision should not be used merely to enhance bargaining rights or secure a tactical advantage in arbitration.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant claimed the union improperly withdrew an overtime grievance, poorly drafted a grievance regarding sick pay and legal fees following criminal charges, and failed to consult him regarding a workplace transfer.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union reasonably relied on a legal opinion when withdrawing the overtime grievance, that the sick pay grievance was understood and resolved, and that the union promptly corrected the transfer issue when notified.

The Board concluded there was no evidence of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union.