OLRB 1997

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Board decision that declared a sale of business had occurred.

The applicant argued that the Board erred by failing to set out the parties' arguments and the case law in its decision.

The Board dismissed the application for reconsideration, finding that it had provided a seven-page decision setting out the relevant facts and applying the law, which more than met its obligations under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to provide adequate reasons.

The Board noted that in cases where the law is settled and outcomes apparent, it will err on the side of brevity to fulfill its goal of timely decision-making.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that a union steward harassed him in violation of sections 87(2)(a) and (b) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint without a hearing on the merits.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 96 of the Act to dismiss the complaint, finding that even if the facts alleged were true, the conduct did not clearly fall within section 87(2), the conduct had ceased long ago, and the requested remedies were unlikely to be granted.

Two trade unions applied for certification in the construction industry, naming Alcan Aluminium Limited as the responding employer.

Several divisions of Alcan intervened, arguing that the specific division, Chemicals, was the true employer and that Alcan Aluminium Limited should not be named.

The Board examined the corporate structure and control, finding that Alcan Aluminium Limited retained ultimate financial and labour relations control, particularly concerning the construction project in question.

The Board concluded that Alcan Aluminium Limited, not its unincorporated division, was the proper responding employer for labour relations purposes.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The most recent collective agreement between the responding party employer and the intervenor union had expired, and a conciliation officer had been appointed.

Under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act and the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the open period for a certification application closes when a conciliation officer is appointed or the agreement expires, whichever is later.

As no subsequent agreement had been entered into since the conciliation officer's appointment, the Board found the application untimely and dismissed it.

The union applied for certification and the Board ordered a representation vote based on an appearance of 40% support, using the union's estimate of the bargaining unit size.

The employer argued that the Board should have considered the employer's calculation of the number of employees, which would have shown less than 40% support, and thus no vote should have been ordered.

The Board rejected this argument, confirming its practice of relying only on the union's estimate and membership evidence to determine the appearance of support under section 8(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

As the union won the representation vote, the Board issued a certificate pending final resolution of the bargaining unit description.

The union applied for certification.

Two employees alleged they were intimidated and coerced by union organizers into signing membership cards, and requested that the Board dismiss the application.

The Board held a hearing and found that the statements made by the organizers did not amount to intimidation or coercion, but rather constituted typical social pressure and salesmanship during an organizing drive.

The Board concluded that the employees had simply changed their minds about supporting the union after signing the cards.

As the union filed membership evidence on behalf of over 55% of the employees, the Board dismissed the allegations and certified the union.