OLRB 1995

The applicant union applied to combine two bargaining units it represented at the respondent newspaper: one consisting of editorial employees and another consisting of part-time mailroom employees.

The employer opposed the combination, arguing the units lacked a community of interest and that the combination would shift bargaining power and cause serious labour relations problems.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the application, finding that the combination would facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining, reduce fragmentation, and not cause serious labour relations problems.

The applicant union sought to combine several bargaining units at various retail stores in Ontario under section 7 of the Labour Relations Act.

The responding employer argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction to combine units that had already given notice to bargain and invoked statutory negotiation processes, and alternatively, that doing so would cause serious labour relations problems.

The Board held that it had jurisdiction to combine the units regardless of the stage of collective bargaining.

The Board found that combining the units would facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining and reduce fragmentation, and directed the combination of the units, while reserving on the effective date to allow the parties to address transitional issues.

The applicant union sought certification for three groups of employees, submitting authorization cards as evidence of employee support.

The employer argued the cards merely expressed a desire for representation and did not constitute 'membership' or an 'application for membership' as required by the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed the statutory history, including the impact of Bill 40, and concluded that the legislative changes did not alter the fundamental requirement for actual membership or an application for membership.

Finding that the authorization cards did not meet this standard, and refusing to admit oral evidence to cure the documentary defect, the Board dismissed the certification applications.

During a certification application in the construction industry, a dispute arose over a Board Officer's procedural ruling allowing the responding party to introduce certain documents and call witnesses.

The applicant objected on several grounds, including the rule in Browne and Dunn.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board upheld the Officer's ruling, noting that under section 105(2) of the Labour Relations Act, Board Officers have the authority to make rulings on the admissibility of evidence.

The Board emphasized that it will not interfere with an Officer's procedural directions absent a compelling reason, and that Officers should focus on obtaining arguably relevant evidence without taking an unduly technical approach.

The applicants, members of the responding party union, brought an application alleging that the union violated the Labour Relations Act by concluding local collective agreements at variance with the provincial agreement.

The union had obtained a mandate from its members to offer contractors a concession to work at 85% of the provincial wage rate to combat non-union competition.

The Employer Bargaining Agency and the Ontario Provincial Council subsequently authorized this variation retroactively.

The Board found that the applicants had standing, but dismissed the application, holding that the provincial bargaining agencies were empowered to amend the provincial agreement and that such amendments could legitimately be made retroactive.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer discharged a key union organizer and supported an anti-union employee committee.

The Board found the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by involuntarily removing the organizer from the workplace and by materially assisting the anti-union group, including facilitating their communications and meeting with their delegation.

Concluding that the employer's illegal conduct made it unlikely that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained, the Board certified the union pursuant to section 9.2 of the Act.

The union applied for certification for two of the employer's grocery stores.

The employer and a group of objecting employees raised preliminary issues regarding the timeliness of petition documents, the sufficiency of the union's membership evidence, and the propriety of the union's campaign literature.

The Board ruled that the petition in the first file was untimely, but the petition in the second file was timely.

The Board dismissed the employer's objections to the membership evidence, finding that the lack of a witness signature and the pre-signing of the receiver's line did not invalidate the cards.

The Board also found that the union's campaign literature did not improperly trade on the Board's neutrality.

The Board certified the union for the first store and directed a further hearing for the second store.

The Association of Major League Umpires filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the American and National Leagues and the Toronto Blue Jays, challenging a lock-out and the use of replacement umpires at games in Toronto.

The Leagues argued that their collective bargaining relationship was governed by American law and that Ontario law did not apply.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the Ontario Labour Relations Act applies to the umpires when they work in Toronto.

The Board declared that the lock-out and the use of replacement umpires in Ontario were unlawful because the parties had not completed the compulsory conciliation process required by the Act.

The Minister referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether Goderich Place Retirement Residence is a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The Board found that the residence, which provides shelter, care, and assistance with daily living for the elderly, qualifies as a 'home for the aged' and therefore falls within the statutory definition of a hospital.

A dissenting board member disagreed with the application of the Act to this type of residence.

The union applied to certify a bargaining unit of security officers and to combine it with an existing full-time bargaining unit.

The employer argued that section 6(6) of the Labour Relations Act precluded the combination because the security officers monitored other employees, creating a conflict of interest.

The Board agreed, finding that the statutory requirement for a separate guards unit under section 6(6) could not be circumvented by a combination application.

The certification was granted for a separate unit, but the combination application was dismissed.

The applicant, a meat cutter discharged after a workplace altercation, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union.

He alleged the union acted arbitrarily by failing to adequately investigate his claim that he was provoked and by refusing to allow him to attend the union meeting where the decision not to arbitrate his grievance was made.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union acted arbitrarily by failing to consider a significant aspect of the applicant's defence, allowing the complainant in the altercation to participate in the decision-making meeting, and failing to provide a satisfactory explanation for not proceeding to arbitration.

The Board ordered the union to refer the grievance to arbitration.

During a hearing for a union certification application and unfair labour practice complaint, an issue arose regarding the witnessing of union membership cards.

The union requested the Board not inquire further into the issue.

The Board ruled it would hear evidence on the witnessing of the cards but declined to conduct a broad inquiry into the Form A-4 declaration, citing the need to protect the secrecy of membership evidence under section 113 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also admitted new evidence from objecting employees regarding additional cards, despite late disclosure, but adjourned that portion to allow the union time to prepare.

The applicant union applied for certification of a single retail store location.

The responding employer argued that a single store unit was inappropriate due to the frequent interchange of employees among its six Toronto-area stores and centralized training and buying practices, proposing instead a municipal-wide unit.

The Board applied the Hospital for Sick Children test and found that the single location unit would not cause serious labour relations problems.

The Board granted interim certification for the single store unit, pending the resolution of disputed supervisory classifications.

The applicants filed a complaint alleging that the union breached the Labour Relations Act by providing insufficient notice for a ratification vote, giving misleading information, and applying undue pressure to accept the contract.

The union brought a motion to dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board found that the facts pleaded, even if true, did not establish a violation of the Act.

The notice period was not unduly short, and there were no facts pleaded to show that employees were denied an ample opportunity to vote.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union sought damages under section 126 of the Labour Relations Act for a breach of the subcontracting clause in its collective agreement, following a Board decision in a jurisdictional dispute that the work should have been assigned to its members.

The Board dismissed the application, holding that damages will generally not be awarded for an incorrect work assignment where the employer or general contractor acted reasonably in the face of conflicting collective agreement obligations.

The applicant failed to demonstrate that the responding party acted unreasonably in its initial assignment.

The applicant trade union requested a pre-hearing production order in relation to applications under sections 1(4) and 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board noted that pre-hearing disclosure is often helpful in such cases, but observed that part of the request appeared to require the creation of documents.

The Board also discussed the implied undertaking rule regarding the use of produced documents.

The Board directed the Registrar to send a copy of the applicant's request to the responding employers and gave them ten days to make written submissions before deciding on the request.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer terminated two employees and intimidated others during an organizing campaign.

The employer did not attend the hearing, citing financial inability to travel to Toronto, and the Board declined to change the venue to Thunder Bay based on its travel policy.

The Board found that the employer breached sections 65, 67, and 71 of the Labour Relations Act by terminating the employees for their union support and creating a climate of fear.

The Board ordered the employees reinstated and certified the union under section 9.2 of the Act.

This is the dissenting opinion of Board Member Shamanski regarding a union application concerning the Town of Ajax's takeover of its transit system from Charterways Transportation Limited.

The dissenting member would have found that the Town's hiring of former Charterways employees was a humanitarian act rather than a transfer of an essential element of the business.

The member concluded that section 64.1(1) of the Labour Relations Act did not apply because the transaction occurred prior to January 1, 1993, and would have dismissed the union's application.

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.

The applicants brought an application under sections 1(4) and 64 of the Labour Relations Act following the purchase of several farm co-operatives.

The responding trade unions raised a preliminary constitutional objection, arguing that the Ontario Labour Relations Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicants operated feed mills and seed cleaning mills, which are declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada under the Canada Wheat Board Act.

The Board applied the core/subsidiary integration test and found that the retail and other provincial operations were not sufficiently integrated into the federal works to bring the entire enterprise under federal jurisdiction.

The constitutional objection was dismissed, and the Board assumed jurisdiction to hear the merits of the application.