OLRB 1996

The applicants filed a complaint alleging that the responding parties breached section 79 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by failing to conduct an employee ratification vote for a memorandum of settlement in the construction industry.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that section 44 of the Act explicitly exempts the construction industry from mandatory employee ratification votes.

The Board held that a trade union in the construction industry is free to choose a ratification process that does not include a vote of employees, such as a vote of accredited delegates.

The applicant employee applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

The union filed a counter-application alleging the employer initiated the termination application and interfered with the union's representation rights.

The Board found that the employer's principal officer had created a climate of antagonism against the union and had explicitly requested the applicant to bring the decertification application.

Concluding that the employer initiated the application within the meaning of section 63(16) of the Labour Relations Act, the Board exercised its discretion to dismiss the termination application.

The Board also found the employer violated section 70 of the Act by unduly influencing the employee.

The applicant applied for termination of the union's bargaining rights.

The union responded with allegations of employer initiation under section 63(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and had a pending application for first contract arbitration under section 43.

The Board deferred ordering a representation vote and directed that the termination application be heard together with the first contract arbitration application.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

The responding party asserted that the employees were already represented by an incumbent employees' association under a collective agreement.

Finding that the applicant had the requisite support, the Board directed a representation vote.

Voters will cast two ballots: one for representation by the applicant, and a second choosing between the applicant and the incumbent association, pending a future determination of the association's trade union status.

The employer applied under section 5(2) of the Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act, 1995 (Bill 7) to separate its existing combined full-time and part-time bargaining units into distinct units.

The employer argued that Bill 7 codified a pre-1993 presumption that there is no community of interest between full-time and part-time employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rejected this argument, finding that Bill 7 did not codify such a presumption and that the Board must assess the specific circumstances of each case.

Based on the agreed facts, the Board found a clear community of interest between the full-time and part-time employees, as they performed the same duties under the same supervision, received the same training, and had similar conditions of employment.

The application was dismissed.

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) brought an application alleging that union leaders and organizations breached section 83 of the Labour Relations Act by encouraging protesters to picket TTC sites during the 'Days of Protest', which would cause TTC employees to engage in an unlawful strike.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that verbal statements constitute 'acts' under section 83 and that the provision's restriction on Charter rights of expression and assembly is demonstrably justified.

The Board concluded that two union leaders breached the Act and issued cease and desist orders restricting picketing at TTC access points to ensure employees could work, while dismissing the application against a third leader and the organizations.

A dissenting member argued that section 83 should not apply to political speech and that the restrictions were not justified under the Charter.

The applicant trade union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board, alleging the responding employer violated the provincial collective agreement.

The employer argued the union had abandoned its bargaining rights obtained through a 1963 voluntary recognition agreement.

The Board found that the employer failed to rebut the presumption against abandonment, noting the employer's agreement that the union never intended to abandon its rights.

The Board declared the employer bound by the provincial collective agreement.

The applicant employer sought a declaration and cease-and-desist order against the responding trade union and its president, alleging they threatened or encouraged an unlawful strike in connection with the 'Days of Action' political protests.

The employer argued that the union's refusal to provide written assurances that employees would report to work constituted condonation of the threatened work stoppage.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the union or its president had taken any positive steps to call, authorize, counsel, or encourage an unlawful strike, and declined to infer a violation of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 from the union's mere inaction or non-committal response.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.

A representation vote was held, but the ballots were segregated due to disputes over voter eligibility.

The employer argued that four employees who were not at work on the application date because they took 'lieu time' should be eligible to vote, urging the Board to depart from its established 'date of application' policy.

The Board reviewed its historical approach and the purposes of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, concluding that the transient nature of the construction industry still justified restricting voter eligibility to those at work on the application date.

The Board also determined that a disputed individual was hired prior to the application date and was therefore an eligible voter.

A dissenting Board member would have allowed the four employees to vote.

The applicant union (OPSEU) filed a work assignment dispute under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, challenging the Hospital's decision to reassign respiratory and cardiac testing work from Cardio-Pulmonary Technicians to Registered Nurses and SEIU members.

The Hospital argued the transfer to a 'point of care' model would improve efficiency and patient care.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the Hospital's decision was made for bona fide operational reasons and that the OPSEU collective agreement did not expressly prohibit the transfer of work out of the bargaining unit.

The applicants sought interim orders staying the implementation of a Memorandum of Settlement respecting Generation Projects, alleging that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers had improperly negotiated the agreement to the detriment of Local 1788 members.

The Board first determined that while it lacked jurisdiction to grant substantive interim relief under section 98 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, it possessed such jurisdiction under section 16.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

However, the Board dismissed the application on its merits, finding that the alleged harm was speculative and personal, and that the applicants had engaged in undue delay in seeking relief.

The applicant, a university professor, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his faculty association after it refused to take his grievance to arbitration.

The grievance, which alleged a breach of academic freedom, had been held in abeyance for several years pending the outcome of the applicant's civil suit.

After the civil suit was dismissed for delay, the applicant sought to reactivate the grievance.

The faculty association obtained a legal opinion indicating the grievance would likely be dismissed at arbitration due to the inordinate delay, and subsequently voted not to proceed.

The applicant alleged the decision was motivated by political animus and was arbitrary, discriminatory, and in bad faith.

The Board granted the responding party's motion for non-suit, finding no evidence of animus or bad faith, and concluding the union had honestly considered the merits and the delay issue in reaching its decision.

The applicant local union alleged that its parent international union violated section 147 of the Labour Relations Act by altering its jurisdiction without just cause.

The parent union had restricted the local union's jurisdiction to direct employees of the employer, removing its jurisdiction over work performed by contractors, and redistributing that work to other local unions.

The Board held that the parent union had just cause to alter the jurisdiction.

The Board found that the parent union's decision was a fair and reasonable resolution to an ongoing internal jurisdictional dispute, and that returning the local unions to their intended jurisdictional positions would facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining without causing serious labour relations problems.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board, alleging the employer failed to pay the grievor the proper apprentice wage rate.

The grievance was filed and referred to arbitration well beyond the time limits set out in the collective agreement.

The Board considered whether to extend the time limits under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Finding no reasonable explanation for the union's eight-and-a-half-month delay in referring the grievance to arbitration after receiving the employer's response, the Board declined to extend the time limits and dismissed the grievance.

The Board previously certified the applicant union and directed counsel for the responding party and the objecting employees to show cause why their conduct during the hearing should not be reported to the Law Society of Upper Canada or stated as a case of contempt to the Divisional Court.

Prior to the scheduling of the show cause hearing, both counsel submitted letters of apology to the Board.

The Vice-Chair accepted the apologies, though rejecting the explanations for the conduct, and concluded that a show cause hearing was no longer necessary.

The proceeding was terminated.

The applicant unions sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act against Con-Ex Inc. and the Dobben group of companies, as well as a declaration of joint liability for outstanding debts.

The Board found that while the entities carried on associated or related activities under common control, it declined to exercise its discretion to declare them one employer because Con-Ex was not performing work covered by the collective agreement.

However, the Board declared Dobben Construction Inc. and Marcon Contractors jointly liable for the prior debts of Dobben Group Inc.

The applicant union sought a declaration that Ferretti Forming Inc. and Fer-Pal Construction Ltd. were a single employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and relief under section 69 for a sale of a business.

The responding parties conceded the pre-conditions for section 1(4) were met but argued against the Board exercising its discretion.

The Board found that Ferretti Forming voluntarily entered into a bargaining relationship to secure union work, without intermingling of employees or diversion of work from the unionized company.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to grant the related employer declaration and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a third application for termination of bargaining rights shortly after a previous application was dismissed.

The union argued the application was untimely under the newly enacted Interim Rules of Procedure and that the Board should refuse to entertain it due to the multiplicity of applications.

The Board relieved against the strict application of the new rules, finding the application timely.

However, the Board exercised its discretion to refuse to entertain the application, balancing the employees' right to test union support against the need for stability in the collective bargaining relationship.

The Board imposed a one-year bar on further applications by the applicant.

The applicant employer applied under section 65(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to terminate the responding party union's bargaining rights.

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

The Board found that the union had not slept on its rights and was making efforts to bargain, despite unsmooth negotiations.

Applying the principle that section 65(2) is to be used as a shield and not a sword, the Board granted the motion and dismissed the employer's application.

The responding parties brought a preliminary motion to bar the applicant union's related and successor employer applications under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding parties argued that the union's prior application for certification in respect of one of the responding parties constituted an admission against interest that it did not hold existing bargaining rights.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the preliminary motion, holding that the Act permits a trade union to pursue certification and section 69/1(4) applications in the alternative, as they are not mutually exclusive and serve different remedial purposes.