Pauline R. Seville

The applicant union brought an application under the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act regarding the purported transfer of a Crown-operated facility to the private sector.

At the hearing, the respondent Crown submitted that the application was premature as no legal entity had yet been created to receive the transfer.

The parties agreed to adjourn the matter sine die until the transaction crystallized.

The applicant also requested the Board to seek a Court order enforcing a subpoena against a witness who failed to attend.

The Board declined, noting that under section 12 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, it is generally the responsibility of the party seeking the witness's attendance to pursue enforcement.

The application was adjourned for up to one year.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent school board committed an unfair labour practice by distributing a circular to occasional teachers during an organizing campaign.

The circular stated that union solicitation should not take place on school premises during the school day and warned of discipline for such conduct.

A subsequent circular clarified that employees could discuss union membership on their own time.

The majority of the Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer's communications were a valid exercise of its right to maintain order and prevent disruption of the educational program, and did not violate the Labour Relations Act.

A dissenting member would have found an unfair labour practice and ordered a remedial posting.

The applicant union sought certification for a single bargaining unit of all occasional teachers employed by the respondent board of education.

The respondent argued for four separate units, dividing teachers by elementary/secondary panels and by short-term/long-term assignments.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rejected the short-term/long-term division, finding it would cause undue fragmentation given the fluid nature of occasional teaching assignments.

However, the Board accepted the division between elementary and secondary panels, citing historical dichotomies, different qualifications, and distinct bargaining priorities.

The Board also determined that its standard 'thirty day rule' would apply to calculate the number of employees in the bargaining units at the time of the application.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer violated the statutory freeze period under section 70 of the Act by altering its hiring procedure.

The dispute arose when the employer's Executive Director vetoed the hiring of a contract employee for a permanent position, despite the employee being the unanimous choice of the cottage staff.

The Board found that while the cottage staff had a long-standing privilege of making hiring recommendations, ultimate decision-making authority had always rested with senior management.

The employer's decision to overrule the recommendation was within its established management rights and did not constitute a breach of the statutory freeze.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union applied under section 5 of The Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act, 1977, seeking a declaration that it is the sole bargaining agent for employees of the respondent municipality following the transfer of water and sewage treatment plants from the Province.

The intervener union argued that the transfer was not complete pending Ontario Municipal Board approval and sought to preserve a separate bargaining unit for the transferred employees.

The Board found that a transfer of functions had occurred and that the employees had been substantially intermingled.

Given the overwhelming majority of employees already represented by the applicant union and the labour relations difficulties of fragmenting the bargaining structure, the Board declared the applicant union the bargaining agent for the merged unit and terminated the intervener's bargaining rights without a representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification to displace the incumbent union representing technical paramedical employees and to expand the bargaining unit to include previously unrepresented professional paramedical employees.

The Board held that in a displacement application, a union cannot sweep in a group of previously unrepresented employees solely on the strength of its membership support in the incumbent's unit.

The Board found the incumbent's bargaining unit to be the appropriate unit, ordered a representation vote for that unit, and dismissed the application as it related to the unrepresented professional employees due to insufficient membership support.