OLRB 1997

The applicant filed a complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging reprisals for raising health and safety concerns, which included allegations of a racially poisoned work environment and physical hazards.

The responding party brought a preliminary motion requesting the Board defer to the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Board found that the essence of the complaint was racial discrimination and harassment, which falls squarely within the specialized jurisdiction of the Commission under the Human Rights Code.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 50(3) of the OHSA to decline to inquire into the matter and dismissed the application.

The applicant union applied for certification and won a representation vote.

The employer argued that a second vote should be ordered under the 'build-up' principle because it was opening a second plant and significantly expanding its full-time workforce.

The Board held that the build-up principle survived the enactment of Bill 7, but found that the anticipated increase in employees did not meet the 50% threshold required to order a new vote, particularly because part-time employees were included in the all-employee bargaining unit.

The Board certified the union, with one member dissenting.

Following the merger of two hospitals, the applicant hospital applied under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking a declaration that intermingling of employees had occurred and requesting the restructuring of multiple bargaining units into two units, along with representation votes.

The responding trade unions opposed the application, arguing that the transfer of employees did not constitute intermingling and that the hospital's actions were not bona fide.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that intermingling had occurred due to the integration of the hospitals and the regular movement of staff between sites, which caused significant operational and labour relations difficulties.

The Board exercised its discretion to combine the existing bargaining units into a paramedical unit and a service/clerical unit, and ordered representation votes to determine the bargaining agents for the newly structured units.

The union brought an application alleging that the responding party was a successor employer following the purchase of a bankrupt company's rubber division.

The responding party raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the union's bargaining rights did not extend to its location in Elora, Ontario.

The Board found that the union and the predecessor employer had attempted to amend the collective agreement to expand its geographic scope in the event of a sale, but this arrangement effectively created two collective agreements or altered the term of operation without Board consent, violating the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Consequently, the geographic scope clause did not cover the Elora location, and the application was dismissed.

The union applied for interim relief under section 98 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking an order that the responding parties produce financial and lease information necessary for collective bargaining.

The responding parties objected to producing lease agreements, citing confidentiality and competitive sensitivity.

The Board found an arguable case on the merits and that the balance of harm favoured granting the order.

The Board directed the responding parties to produce the requested information, subject to confidentiality restrictions, to facilitate bargaining for a second collective agreement.

The applicant union sought a declaration of successor rights, arguing that the opening of a Ruth's Chris steakhouse in the hotel premises formerly occupied by Trader Vic's constituted a sale of a business under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union argued that the downtown location was a key asset transferred to the new restaurant.

The Board found that the transaction was merely a lease of space and that no part of the predecessor's business, other than the location itself, was transferred.

The application was dismissed.

The Labourers' union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of tending work for carpenters erecting and dismantling scaffolding.

The employer, Doug Chalmers Construction Limited, argued it should have discretion to assign the work based on economy and efficiency.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the Canada Millwrights factors, finding that employer and area practice, along with a prior trade agreement, favoured the Labourers' claim.

The Board ordered the employer to assign at least one construction labourer to tend carpenters on all scaffolding jobs in issue, while retaining discretion to assign additional labourers as needed.

One Board member dissented, emphasizing the employer's right to assign work based on cost and efficiency.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether Bellwoods Centre for Community Living Inc. is a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA).

Bellwoods provides support services to physically disabled adults to enable independent living.

Applying the factors from the Red Cross decision, the Board concluded that the services provided are essential to the health and safety of the clients, who are highly dependent on them.

The Board advised the Minister that Bellwoods is an 'other institution' and therefore a 'hospital' under the HLDAA.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to displace the incumbent union.

The issue was whether the application was timely.

The parties were subject to the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA) and an interest arbitration board had issued an award that remitted the issue of lay-off and recall language back to the parties for negotiation.

The Board held that the interest arbitration award was not a final decision on all matters in dispute, and therefore the 90-day extension period under s. 10(12) of the HLDAA had not yet commenced.

Consequently, the application for certification was premature and untimely, and was dismissed.

The parent union applied under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act for the Board's consent to extend its trusteeship over the local union for an additional six months.

The trusteeship was initially imposed due to serious financial and operational concerns, including significant debt, financial mismanagement, and internal political turmoil.

The Board found that the administrator had made reasonable, good-faith efforts to address these issues and that a minimum six-month extension was necessary to complete the restructuring and ensure a smooth return to local autonomy.

The application for extension was granted.

The employer applied under section 5(2) of the transitional provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that a combined full-time and part-time bargaining unit was no longer appropriate.

The union argued that the Board should apply its modern approach to community of interest, focusing on whether the combined unit caused serious labour relations problems.

The Board rejected this approach, finding that the transitional provisions required a traditional community of interest analysis.

Given the significant differences in terms and conditions of employment and the traditional nature of the part-time student workforce, the Board found no community of interest and declared the combined unit inappropriate.

In an application for certification, the employer and objecting employees challenged the applicant's status as a trade union and the validity of its membership evidence.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, despite the absence of original charters from 1911.

The Board also dismissed a request to reconsider its earlier decision directing a representation vote, holding that the membership evidence was sufficient to establish an appearance of 40 percent support.

Finally, the Board permitted the union to raise a post-vote challenge to the employment status of two individuals, and directed further submissions on the remaining voter eligibility disputes.

The applicants, Millwright Local 1410 and U.A. Local 221, applied for certification for construction employees of Alcan Aluminium Limited.

Alcan and intervening unions argued the bargaining units should be restricted to Alcan's Chemicals division or include 'save and except' language to protect existing bargaining rights held by the Steelworkers and Machinists at other plants.

The Board found it inappropriate to restrict the units to a specific division but agreed to include specific 'save and except' language to preserve existing bargaining rights.

The Board also dismissed Alcan's motion to dismiss the U.A.'s application based on alleged misrepresentations by the union that it would not seek certification, finding no legal basis for estoppel or fraud.

Certificates were ordered to issue.

The applicants filed unfair labour practice complaints against the responding party, a tree seedling nursery.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicants were employed in horticulture, which is excluded under section 3(c) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicants argued they were employed in silviculture, an exception to the horticulture exclusion.

After reviewing expert evidence and caselaw, the Board concluded that the employer's primary business was producing tree seedlings for reforestation efforts and that the employees performing that work were employed in silviculture.

Consequently, the Act applied, and the Board had jurisdiction to entertain the applications.

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints and an application for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

The Board found that the employer breached the statutory freeze provision by cancelling a long-standing annual Christmas bonus.

The Board also found that the employer's communications to employees, including a letter from the partners and comments by management, constituted unlawful interference, intimidation, and coercion.

Finally, the Board concluded that the employer failed to make reasonable efforts to conclude a collective agreement, took uncompromising positions without reasonable justification, and refused to recognize the union's bargaining authority.

The Board directed that the first collective agreement be settled by arbitration and dismissed a related termination application.

The applicant trade union filed an unfair labour practice complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding parties—various receivers and secured creditors of the bankrupt employer—violated section 70 by failing to remit approximately $35,000 in union dues deducted prior to the bankruptcy.

The responding parties raised preliminary objections that the application did not disclose a prima facie case and that the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the receivers and creditors could not be characterized as 'persons acting on behalf of an employer' under section 70.

Furthermore, the Board held that the claim for unremitted dues was a 'claim provable in bankruptcy' and was therefore caught by the stay of proceedings under section 69.3(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the employer discharged two union supporters and granted a wage increase during the statutory freeze period.

The Board found that the employer discharged the two employees primarily because of their support for the union, in breach of sections 70, 72, and 76 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board concluded that the employer's conduct was so invasive and destructive that a representation vote would not likely reflect the true wishes of the employees, and no other remedy would be sufficient to counter the effects of the contraventions.

The Board ordered automatic certification under section 11 of the Act and directed the employer to offer reinstatement and compensation to the discharged employees.

The Board considered the order in which to hear an application for a first contract arbitration and an application for termination of bargaining rights.

The union had filed the first contract application months before the termination application was filed.

The majority of the Board directed that the first contract application be considered first, as the union had acted expeditiously and the statutory requirements for a first contract, if met, would have given rise to the circumstances making the termination application timely.

The Board also declined to order a representation vote at this time.

One Board Member dissented, arguing a representation vote should be held and the ballot box sealed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The responding party employer requested the application be dismissed without a hearing, arguing that a previous unsuccessful application by the international union within the past year barred this application under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Alternatively, the employer requested no vote be held until the threshold question was decided.

The Board declined to dismiss the application or delay the vote, directing that a representation vote take place and allowing the employer to raise the bar issue later.

A dissenting Board member would have ordered the ballot box sealed pending the determination of the bar issue.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint after losing a representation vote.

The employer failed to appear at the hearing.

The Board heard evidence that the employer's plant manager and a labour relations consultant threatened employees with job losses, wage reductions, and plant closure if the union was certified.

The Board found the employer violated sections 70, 72, and 76 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board granted remedial certification under section 11 and ordered the reinstatement of an inside organizer who had resigned under the reasonable belief that he would be fired for his union activities.