31 total
Board asserts provincial jurisdiction over interconnect company's labour relations and orders representation vote.
The Communications Workers of Canada applied for certification to represent employees of CTG Telecommunications Systems, an interconnect company that sells, installs, and maintains telephone systems.
The respondent challenged the Ontario Labour Relations Board's jurisdiction, arguing its operations were an integral part of the Bell Canada network and thus fell under federal jurisdiction.
The Board held that the respondent's operations were not vital, essential, or integral to the core federal undertaking of Bell Canada, and therefore fell within provincial jurisdiction.
The Board also determined the composition of the appropriate bargaining unit and ordered a representation vote.
Complaint dismissed; hospital parking fee increases during statutory freeze constituted 'business as before'.
The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that two hospitals violated the statutory freeze period under section 13 of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act by increasing employee parking fees during collective bargaining.
The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the hospitals had a well-established pattern of periodically reviewing and adjusting parking rates.
The Board held that the increases constituted 'business as before' and did not violate the statutory freeze.
Applications to terminate bargaining rights dismissed as incumbent union's voluntary recognition agreements were validly ratified.
The applicant union sought to terminate the bargaining rights of the incumbent union and apply for certification to represent employees at food-service outlets at Pearson International Airport.
The incumbent union had entered into voluntary recognition agreements with a new concession operator, which were ratified by the employees.
The applicant argued these agreements should be set aside under section 60(1) and section 46(4) of the Labour Relations Act.
The Board dismissed the applications, finding that the employees had freely ratified the agreements and that the incumbent union had established it represented a majority of the employees at the time the agreements were entered into.
Applications to terminate bargaining rights dismissed where incumbent union established majority support and employees ratified agreement.
The applicant union sought to terminate the bargaining rights of the incumbent union, Local 1000A, and to certify itself as the bargaining agent for employees of a food-service contractor at Pearson International Airport.
The incumbent union had negotiated a new collective agreement with the successor employer, York County Foods, which was ratified by the employees.
The applicant argued the agreement should be set aside under section 60(1) of the Labour Relations Act because it contained a compulsory membership clause and the union had not established majority support.
The Board dismissed the applications, finding that the incumbent union had fairly established its majority support and that the employees had freely ratified the agreement.
Request for reconsideration dismissed; notice to union was sufficient for employees affected by seniority restoration.
The complainants successfully brought a duty of fair representation complaint against their union, resulting in an order restoring their lost seniority.
A group of employees whose relative seniority was adversely affected by this restoration requested a reconsideration, arguing they were denied natural justice because they did not receive notice of the original hearing.
The Board dismissed the request, holding that the objecting employees were allied in interest with the union regarding the substantive issue.
Notice to the union, as their statutory bargaining agent, was sufficient notice to the employees themselves.
Union breached duty of fair representation by providing incorrect advice on seniority consequences of a transfer.
The complainants alleged the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.
The union failed to appear at the initial hearing, claiming a misunderstanding about a settlement, but the Board refused to grant a hearing de novo.
On the merits, the Board dismissed the claim that the union acted improperly by renegotiating the collective agreement to fix a drafting error regarding seniority.
However, the Board found a breach of section 68 regarding incorrect advice given by a shop steward about the effect of a transfer on the complainants' seniority rights.
Because the union provided no explanation for the steward's actions, a prima facie breach was established.
The Board ordered the union and employer to restore the complainants' full company seniority.
Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed; union had prerogative to withdraw grievance without appeal.
The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union after the grievance committee withdrew his grievance, which had been posted to arbitration, without allowing him an appeal.
The union had withdrawn the grievance as part of a backlog clearance following contract negotiations, determining it could not succeed at arbitration.
The Board found that the union's internal appeal procedures did not extend to decisions made after a grievance was posted to arbitration.
As the union retained the prerogative to withdraw the grievance and did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith, the complaint was dismissed.
Union certified without a vote; employee petition rejected due to perceived management involvement.
The applicant trade union applied for certification.
Although the union filed membership cards for 68% of the bargaining unit, a group of employees filed a timely statement in opposition (petition).
The Board held an inquiry into the voluntariness of the petition.
The Board found that the main proponent of the petition had openly established a link between the petition and company management in the minds of employees, creating a reasonable fear that management would learn who signed.
Consequently, the Board gave no weight to the petition and granted outright certification based on the membership evidence.
Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed; union reasonably negotiated shift rotation and relied on legal advice.
The complainant, representing a group of bartenders, alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.
The complaint arose from the union's negotiation of a first collective agreement that replaced fixed day shifts with rotating shifts, and its subsequent refusal to take grievances regarding this change to arbitration.
The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union's bargaining proposals were based on a legitimate desire to eliminate perceived favouritism and were ratified by the majority.
Furthermore, the union's decision not to arbitrate the grievances was reasonably based on legal advice.
Grievance dismissed; letter of intent did not mandate union consultation for non-union shop fabrication.
The union and the company both referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.
The union alleged that the company violated a letter of intent incorporated into the collective agreement by subcontracting the fabrication of vessels to a non-union shop without prior consultation or justification.
The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that while the company ignored the spirit of the letter of intent, the letter only suggested, rather than mandated, that fabrication work be placed in union shops or discussed with the union if placed elsewhere.
Union certification application for store managers dismissed as they exercise managerial functions.
The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of store managers at the respondent's retail outlets.
The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the store managers exercised managerial functions and were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.
The Board found that the store managers had the authority to hire and phase out temporary employees, schedule hours of work, and evaluate employees.
The Board concluded that the store managers exercised managerial functions and dismissed the application for certification.
