OLRB 1997

The applicant union applied for certification and proposed a specific bargaining unit.

The responding hospital initially proposed a different unit but later agreed in writing to the applicant's proposed unit.

A representation vote was held based on this agreement.

On the eve of the vote, the hospital attempted to argue it had only agreed to a voting constituency, not the bargaining unit itself, and claimed the unit would cause undue fragmentation.

The Board held that the statutory scheme does not permit a 'qualified' agreement on a bargaining unit description.

The hospital was bound by its agreement, and the Board found the agreed-upon unit to be appropriate.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to determine whether the employer, Meadowcroft Holdings Inc., is a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA).

The employer operates a retirement living centre providing accommodation, meals, and varying degrees of medical and personal care to elderly residents.

The Board applied an institutional approach rather than a purely labour relations approach, focusing on the nature of the care provided rather than the potential impact of a strike.

The Board concluded that the employer's focus on the accommodation, observation, assessment, and supervision of aged residents qualifies it as a home for the aged, and therefore it is a 'hospital' under the HLDAA.

The applicant unions brought applications under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act concerning the sale of an answering service business from Rogers Cantel Paging Inc. to AAS Telecommunications Services Limited.

Rogers raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the sale was from a federal undertaking.

The Board found that Rogers operated the answering and paging services as a fully integrated business, which constituted a federally regulated undertaking.

The Board concluded it has no jurisdiction under section 69 to consider a sale of part of a federally regulated operation to a provincially regulated company, and dismissed the applications.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees at a retail store.

During the organizing drive, the employer engaged in a campaign that included daily meetings and managers repeatedly questioning employees about the union.

Crucially, management refused to answer employee questions about whether the store would close if the union was successful, which the Board found intentionally fueled employee fears for their job security.

The Board concluded that this conduct violated section 70 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that the resulting representation vote did not reflect the true wishes of the employees.

The Board certified the union pursuant to section 11 of the Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board heard a procedural motion to determine which party should call its evidence first in an application involving a conflict of interest objection under section 14(4).

The majority of the Board directed the employer to call its evidence first, reasoning that the employer possessed the specific knowledge regarding the alleged conflict of interest and that requiring the union to prove a negative across hundreds of sites would unnecessarily prolong the proceedings.

The applicant union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A vote was held and the ballots were segregated.

A preliminary issue arose regarding whether individuals holding a 'Pending Provisional C of Q' from the Ministry of Education and Training were entitled to be on the voting list.

The Board held that the certificate is proof that the employee is qualified to work at the electrical trade during the allowed time frame.

Therefore, individuals holding such certificates who were at work on the application date doing bargaining unit work are entitled to be on the voting list.

The union applied for certification and a representation vote was held.

The employer requested a new vote, arguing that two employees did not receive notice of the actual voting hours and were deprived of the opportunity to vote because they relied on the hours proposed in the parties' agreement.

The Board dismissed the request and directed that a certificate issue, finding that sufficient notice was provided through the Board's postings and that employees are responsible for keeping themselves informed of the final vote arrangements.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by discontinuing the practice of providing free movie passes to newly unionized front-of-house employees immediately after their first collective agreement was signed.

The employer argued it was merely enforcing an 'entire agreement' clause.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the employer was entitled to rely on the clause, its differential treatment of the front-of-house staff compared to unionized projectionists (who continued to receive passes) demonstrated an anti-union animus.

The Board declared a violation of section 72 and ordered the employer to cease and desist the discriminatory practice.

The applicant union filed a jurisdictional dispute concerning the operation of cranes and forklifts at a construction site.

The responding parties objected to the Board entertaining the application, arguing that the dispute had already been decided by an arbitrator under the Canadian Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the Construction Industry.

The Board held that the applicant local union was not stipulated to the Plan, either in its own right or through its parent international union, and was not a privy of the international union.

Consequently, the applicant was not bound by the Plan's arbitration decision.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to dismiss the application and directed that the matter be scheduled for consultation.

The applicants, a group of employees, alleged that the union violated its duty of fair representation and the statutory requirements for ratification votes by failing to explicitly inform them that their employment with the employer was terminated following the sale of their plant.

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

The Board found that the union had accurately described the settlement terms at the ratification meeting and could not be faulted for the applicants' erroneous assumptions.

The Board exercised its discretion to dismiss the application without a hearing, concluding there were no material facts to support the allegations of bad faith, dishonesty, or misrepresentation.

The applicant, a newly formed independent union, applied for certification to displace the intervenor union.

The Board held a hearing to determine whether the applicant met the statutory definition of a 'trade union' under section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Despite irregularities in following its own constitution during its organizational meeting, the Board found that the essential features of forming a trade union—adopting a constitution, admitting members, and having representative officers—were present.

The Board concluded that the applicant is a viable organization of employees and therefore a trade union within the meaning of the Act.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to take his discharge grievance to arbitration, despite a membership vote in favour of doing so.

The Board found that the applicant failed to plead a prima facie case, as a union is not required to take a grievance to arbitration merely because of a membership vote, provided it does not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.

The Board ordered the self-represented applicant to file a fully particularized statement of fact within 14 days, failing which the complaint would be dismissed.

The applicant trade union sought reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed its application for certification and imposed a one-year bar.

The applicant argued that because the ballots from the representation vote were segregated and not counted, the application was not dismissed pursuant to section 10 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and thus the mandatory bar did not apply.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the application was indeed dismissed under section 10 because the prerequisite conditions for certification were not met.

Alternatively, the Board held it would exercise its discretion under section 111(2)(k) to impose the bar, noting it would be absurd if an applicant could avoid a bar by having an application dismissed rather than withdrawn after a vote.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging that the employer distributed a video and letter to employees shortly before a representation vote that materially misrepresented the statutory freeze provisions under section 86 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union also alleged that the employer's statements regarding plant competitiveness were threatening.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that both parties had provided incomplete but not materially false descriptions of the statutory freeze, and that the employer's statements about competitiveness fell within the permissible limits of employer speech.

As the union lost the representation vote, the certification application was dismissed.

The applicant union filed a jurisdictional dispute under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, following a 7-month delay.

The applicant argued the delay was due to a lack of counsel resources and a desire to compile its best case.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the reasons provided did not justify the lengthy delay and that countenancing such a delay would undermine the Board's system for resolving jurisdictional disputes expeditiously.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding her authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The union had requested conciliation after giving notice to bargain to the employer, which objected on the basis that it had contracted out all cleaning work to a successor employer, leaving the bargaining unit empty.

The Board advised that the deemed sale of the business did not terminate the union's bargaining rights or its collective agreement with the predecessor employer.

Therefore, the union was entitled to give notice to bargain, and the Minister has the authority to appoint a conciliation officer, despite the practical difficulties of bargaining for an empty unit.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging that her employer engaged in reprisals against her for having filed a human rights complaint regarding sexual harassment.

The employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss the complaint due to undue delay, lack of jurisdiction, and because the matters were previously settled under the Human Rights Code.

The Board declined to inquire into allegations prior to 1996 due to extreme delay and lack of reasonable explanation.

The Board also held that sexual harassment allegations should be pursued under the Human Rights Code, not the OHSA.

The Board found no evidence that the applicant sought to enforce the OHSA prior to April 1996, and dismissed the reprisal allegations for that period.

The matter was re-listed to deal solely with the remaining timely health and safety issues raised in an April 1996 letter.

The Pembroke Civic Hospital applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, following a directive to close and transfer its operations to the Pembroke General Hospital.

The parties disputed the appropriate bargaining unit structure and the identity of the resulting bargaining agents for the intermingled employees.

The Board determined that the broader-based bargaining unit structure already in place at the surviving hospital (the General) was appropriate, noting its 25-year history of success and the general labour relations trend toward broader units.

The Board ordered a representation vote to allow employees to choose their bargaining agent from among all the affected trade unions.

The applicant, a former hospital employee and newly elected union vice-president, alleged the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to judicially review an arbitration award that confirmed his discharge.

The applicant had previously convinced the union executive to boycott the arbitration hearing, believing he would not get a fair hearing, and signed a release acknowledging the risks.

The Board found no explicit promise by the union to pursue judicial review; rather, the threat of review was a ruse agreed upon by the executive, including the applicant.

The decision not to pursue judicial review was found to be reasonable and not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application for termination of the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The Board noted that a first contract application brought by the union was already pending.

Pursuant to section 43(23) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board directed that the termination application be considered together with the first contract application by the panel scheduled to hear the latter.