OLRB 1995

The applicant, a union member, complained under section 87 of the Labour Relations Act that the audited financial statement provided by the union was inadequate.

The applicant sought a detailed breakdown of various components of the audit and raised concerns about the union's administration.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application without a hearing, finding that the union had met its statutory obligations by providing an audited financial statement certified by the International Supervisor.

The Board noted that section 87 is not an avenue for members to raise concerns regarding the administration of their union or to demand detailed breakdowns of audit components.

The applicant, a security guard, refused to work her night shift at an old post office, citing fears for her safety due to isolation, cold, lack of water, and potential intruders.

The responding party employer dismissed her for refusing the assignment.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant had a bona fide belief that the workplace was likely to endanger her, satisfying the subjective test under section 43 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The employer failed to properly investigate her concerns with her participation as required by the Act.

The Board concluded the dismissal was a reprisal in violation of section 50(1) and ordered reinstatement with compensation.

The union applied to combine a newly certified maintenance bargaining unit with two pre-existing units (a craft unit of pressmen and a departmental unit of truck drivers) at the employer's newspaper operation.

The employer opposed the combination, arguing that section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act precluded combining a craft unit with non-craft units.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the mandatory nature of section 6(3) at the point of certification does not override the Board's discretion to combine units under section 7.

Finding that the combination would facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining and reduce fragmentation without causing serious labour relations problems, the Board ordered the three units combined.

One Board member dissented.

The applicant Ontario Construction Secretariat brought complaints against the responding unions for failing to remit payments required under O. Reg. 187/93.

The responding unions raised a preliminary constitutional challenge, arguing the regulation imposed an unconstitutional indirect tax and violated their freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Charter.

The Board dismissed the constitutional challenges, finding that the regulation of labour relations is within provincial jurisdiction and the required payments are valid administrative fees ancillary to a provincial regulatory scheme, not a tax.

Relying on Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, the Board also held that compelled payments do not infringe the freedom of association.

The union applied for remedies after the Board previously found the employer violated the replacement worker provisions of the Labour Relations Act by using independent contractors to perform bargaining unit work during a strike/lockout.

Recognizing that a cease and desist direction was impractical, the Board ordered the employer to pay damages for its continuing violations.

The Board held that the union suffered a loss of bargaining power and quantified the damages based on the delivery charges that would have been payable under the collective agreement for the work that would have been performed by the bargaining unit member.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of projectionists at the responding party's IMAX theatre.

The parties agreed to have the Board determine as a preliminary issue whether the applicant had craft status with respect to the projectionists under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the projectionists exercised technical skills distinguishing them from other employees, that the union commonly bargained separately for this craft, and that the union pertained to such skills.

The Board concluded that the three conditions for craft status were satisfied.

Following the merger of two hospitals, the union and the successor employer agreed that the union's bargaining rights would extend to the combined group of employees, including previously non-unionized employees.

The intervenors, representing the formerly non-unionized employees, requested that the Board exercise its discretion under section 64(6)(e) of the Labour Relations Act to dovetail their seniority lists with the unionized employees, giving them full credit for their past service.

The Board dismissed the request, deferring to the agreement between the union and the employer, and noting that seniority is a bargaining unit concept that does not exist prior to collective bargaining.

The applicant Millwrights filed a complaint concerning the assignment of work involving the installation of flumes at a Ford engine plant.

The work was performed exclusively by Ironworkers employed by Victoria Steel, which was bound by a collective agreement with the Ironworkers but not the Millwrights.

The Millwrights sought a declaration and order that 50% of the work be assigned to their members, relying on previous Board decisions regarding material handling systems.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding it had no jurisdiction to bind a contractor to such an order where the applicant union does not have a collective agreement with the employer.

The Teamsters and individual complainants alleged that Steinberg breached the duty to bargain in good faith by negotiating a collective agreement with final offer selection and labour peace provisions, and subsequently selling its Ontario retail operations to A & P. They also alleged that the transaction constituted a sale of the distribution business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, and that the structure of the deal and A & P's subsequent hiring practices were motivated by anti-union animus.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed all applications and complaints, finding no breach of the duty to bargain in good faith, no sale of the distribution business, and no anti-union animus in the transaction's structure or A & P's hiring practices.

The Minister of Labour referred two questions to the Ontario Labour Relations Board: whether the Canadian Red Cross Society (Ontario Division) is a 'hospital' under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA), and whether its homemakers are 'hospital employees'.

The Board concluded that the Society's Homemaker Services Program and the Brant County Home Care Program do not meet the statutory definition of a 'hospital'.

The Board emphasized that homemaking services are provided in patients' homes rather than in a residential institution, are not primarily medical in nature, and are not statutorily required.

Consequently, the homemakers are not hospital employees and retain the right to strike under the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant union brought an application under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act concerning the rationalization of rehabilitation services among three hospitals.

The rationalization involved transferring services and employees to a consolidated centre at the responding party hospital, constituting a sale of a business.

The primary issue was whether the seniority of incoming employees should be dovetailed or end-tailed into the existing bargaining unit's seniority list.

The Board found that an intermingling of employees had occurred despite the physical transfers not yet being complete.

The Board ordered that the seniority lists be dovetailed, recognizing the incoming employees' accrued seniority in full, as it provided the most equitable reconciliation of interests and facilitated the rationalization process.

Following a finding that the responding trade union breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, the Board convened a hearing to determine the appropriate remedy.

The Board ordered the applicant's discharge grievance to proceed to arbitration and directed the employer, who had notice but did not participate, to waive any time limits.

The Board dismissed the applicant's request for $3,000 in legal costs, concluding after an extensive review of the jurisprudence that it lacks the statutory jurisdiction to award costs.

The applicant trade unions sought declarations under sections 1(4) and 64 of the Labour Relations Act that the various PCL corporate entities constituted a single employer or that a sale of a business had occurred between them.

The Board found that the PCL family of companies operated as a single integrated business enterprise under common control and direction, with centralized management, human resources, and labour relations functions.

The Board also found that corporate reorganizations in 1978 and 1984 constituted sales of a business.

The Board rejected the responding parties' arguments that the unions had abandoned their bargaining rights or unduly delayed in asserting them.

The Board granted the declarations, binding the PCL entities to the applicable provincial collective agreements, effective May 11, 1994, exempting projects contracted prior to that date.

The applicant union applied for a work assignment direction regarding the classification of Health Promoter, which the employer had assigned to the responding union's all-employee bargaining unit.

The applicant argued the work should be assigned to its paramedical bargaining unit.

The Board considered the employer's preference, the community of interest, and the interdisciplinary nature of the work.

The Board concluded that it was in the best interests of sound labour relations to sustain the employer's assignment of the Health Promoter classification to the responding union's bargaining unit, avoiding seniority and administrative issues.

The application was dismissed.

The responding employers requested that the Board reconsider its decision to issue certificates to the applicant union, arguing that the Board failed to provide sufficient reasons for an earlier decision regarding the employee list.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the employers did not seek to introduce new evidence or make representations they had no prior opportunity to raise.

The Board held that a request for further reasons is not a sufficient ground to reconsider a decision to issue final certificates, and provided brief supplementary reasons explaining its evidentiary findings regarding the employees in question.

The applicant union filed a complaint alleging the school board contravened the strike replacement provisions of the Labour Relations Act by planning to use regular teachers to perform the work of occasional teachers during a threatened strike.

The strike was averted when a collective agreement was reached.

The school board argued the complaint was moot and requested the Board decline to inquire into it.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, exercising its discretion under section 91 of the Act to refuse to render an advisory opinion on a hypothetical scenario where the concrete dispute had disappeared.

During a hearing for an unfair labour practice complaint, the applicant union sought to cross-examine the employer's former solicitor regarding communications with the employer about an alleged plan to contract out delivery services.

The employer objected on the basis of solicitor-client privilege.

The union argued that the privilege had been waived by the employer calling the solicitor as a witness, or alternatively, that the communications fell under the crime or fraud exception.

The Board upheld the objection, finding that the employer had only waived privilege with respect to a specific settlement discussion, and that the crime or fraud exception did not extend to alleged breaches of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ironworkers filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of shop fabrication and on-site work for miscellaneous support steel at a construction project.

The work was assigned to the Ironworkers and Boilermakers, but the IBEW claimed the work should have been assigned to its members.

The Board found that the steel supports were multi-purpose and that factors such as collective bargaining relationships, area and employer practice, safety, skill, and economy favoured maintaining the assignment.

The Board affirmed the assignment of the work to the Ironworkers and Boilermakers.

The applicant Boilermakers union filed a jurisdictional dispute regarding the staffing of tool cribs at two construction projects in Sarnia.

The employers had assigned the work to the Boilermakers.

The Labourers union claimed the work based on area practice.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board, by a majority, overturned the employers' assignment and awarded the work to the Labourers, finding that the overwhelming area practice in Board Area 2 favoured assigning tool crib staffing on multi-trade jobs to the Labourers.

A dissenting Board member would have upheld the employers' assignment.

The Perth and Smiths Falls District Hospital applied under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act to merge certain bargaining units following the amalgamation of the Smiths Falls Community Hospital and the Great War Memorial Hospital.

The Hospital argued that the merger resulted in an intermingling of employees, justifying the consolidation of bargaining units represented by CUPE, OPSEU, and ICTU.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that while services and management had been integrated, there was no significant intermingling of employees or transfer of job opportunities between the two locations that would call into question the logic of the existing bargaining structures.